c 

141 
C32 


UC-NRLF 


c  3  lib 


A  STATISTICAL  STUDY  OF  AMERICAN  MEN 

OF  SCIENCE 


BY 


J.    McKEEN   CATTELL 
PROFESSOR  OF   PSYCHOLOGY,   COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


{Reprinted  from   SCIENCE,  N.  S.,   Vol,  XXIV- ,  No.  621,  pages  658-665,  November  28 

No.  622,  pages  699-707,  November  30;  No.  62S,  pages  732-742,  December  7,  1906; 

and  under  the  title  UA  Further  Statistical  Study  of  American  Men  of  Science" 

Vol  XXXII,  No.  827,  pages  633-648,  November  4 ;  No.  828, 

pages  672-688,  1910.] 


A  STATISTICAL  STUDY 
OF  AMERICAN  MEN  OF  SCIENCE. 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


A  STATISTICAL  STUDY  OF  AMERICAN  MEN   OF   SCIENCE.1 


THE    SELECTION    OF    A   GROUP   OF    ONE    THOUSAND 
SCIENTIFIC  MEN 

THE  psychologist,  like  the  student  of  other 
sciences,  can  view  his  subject  from  different 
standpoints  and  pursue  it  by  various  methods. 
He  may  get  what  knowledge  he  can  of  mental 
processes  by  introspection,  or  he  may  use  ob- 
jective methods.     He  may  confine  himself  to 
the  "  inner  life,"  or  he  may  study  the  indi- 
vidual in  all  his  psychophysical  relations.     He 
may  give  verbal  descriptions,  or  he  may  make 
measurements.     He  may  describe  static  men- 
tal life,  or  he  may  study  the  lower  animals 
and  human  beings  from  a  dynamic  and  genetic 
point  of  view. .    He  may  attempt  to  determine 
facts  and  laws  that  hold  for  mental  life  in 
general,  or  he  may  attend  to  individual  dif- 
ferences.    He  may  ignore  the  practical  appli- 
cations of  his  science,  or  he  may  investigate 
them.     Psychology   has    until   recently    con- 
cerned itself  chiefly  with  the  first  of  these  vari- 
ous alternatives.     But  its  recent  progress  and 
future  development  seem  to  the  present  writer 
to  depend  particularly  on"  the  second.     In  this 
case,  our  two  main  methods,  which  can  often 
be   combined,    are   experiment   and   measure- 
ment in  the  laboratory,  and  the  inductive  and 
statistical  study  of  groups  of  individuals.     In 
recent  years  great  progress  has  been  made  in 
both  directions.    Experimental  psychology  has 
become  a  science  coordinate  with  the   other 
great  sciences,   and  statistics  have  been  ex- 
tended to  include  sociological  and  moral  phe- 
nomena. 

The  intensive  study  of  groups  of  individuals 
has,  however,  only  been  begun.  The  origin  of 
the  method  may  be  attributed  to  Quetelet, 
whose  "  Essai  de  physique  sociale "  was  pub- 
lished in  1835,  and  its  principal  development 

1  Reprinted  from  SCIENCE,  N.  S.,  24:  658-665, 
November  23;  699-707,  November  30;  732-742, 
December  7,  1906. 


to  Dr.  Francis  Galton,  whose  "Hereditary 
Genius  "  (1869)  has  been  followed  by  a  series 
of  books  and  articles,  including  "  English  Men 
of  Science"  (1874).  Another  work  bearing 
closely  on  the  subject  matter  of  the  present 
paper  is  Alphonse  de  Candolle's  "  Histoire  des 
sciences  et  des  savants  depuis  deux  siecles" 
(1873).  Other  extensive  studies  of  groups  of 
individuals  are:  Dr.  Paul  Jacoby's  "Etudes 
sur  la  selection  "  (1881),  which  has  as  its  sub- 
ject matter  the  3,311  Frenchmen  of  the  eight- 
eenth century  whose  biographies  are  included 
in  the  "  Biographie  universelle,"  Professor  A. 
Odin's  "  Genese  des  grands  hommes  "  (1895), 
which  is  a  study  of  6,382  French  men  of  let- 
ters; Mr.  Havelock  Ellis's  "A  Study  of  British 
Genius  "  (1906,  published  in  the  Popular  Sci- 
ence Monthly,  February-September,  1901), 
which  considers  859  men  and  43  women  of 
eminence,  and  Dr.  F.  A.  Woods's  "  Mental  and 
Moral  Heredity  in  Koyalty  "  (1906,  published 
in  the  Popular  Science  Monthly,  August, 
1902- April,  1903),  which  treats  832  membera 
of  royal  families. 

I  have  myself  selected  as  material  for  study 
three  groups :  a  thousand  students  of  Columbia 
University;2  the  thousand  most  eminent  men 
in  history;*  a  thousand  American  men  of 
science.* 

3 "  Physical  and  Mental  Measurements  of  the 
Students  of  Columbia  University"  (with  Dr.  Liv- 
ingston Farrand).  Psychol.  Rev.,  3:  618-648, 
1896.  Cf.  also  the  dissertation  for  the  doctorate 
of  Clark  Wissler,  "  The  Correlation  of  Mental  and 
Physical  Tests,"  Psychol.  Rev.,  Monograph  Sup- 
plements, 16:  iv  +  62,  1901. 

*"A  Statistical  Study  of  Eminent  Men,"  Pop. 
Bci.  Hon.,  53:  359-378,  1903. 

4 "Homo  Scientificus  Americanus:  Address  of 
the  president  of  the  American  Society  of  Natural- 
ists," SCIENCE,  N.  S.,  17:  561-570,  1903.  "Sta- 
tistics of  American  Psychologists,"  Am.  Jour,  of 
Psychol.,  14:  310-328,  1903.  Towards  the  cost 


537 


2094 


538 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


Each  of  these  groups  seems  to  me  favorable 
for  such  work.  The  students  of  Columbia 
College  are  measured,  tested  and  observed  in 
our  laboratory;  we  are  able  to  follow  their 
academic  courses  and  their  careers  in  after 
life.  The  lives  of  the  most  eminent  men  of 
history  are  to  a  certain  extent  public  prop- 
erty, open  to  statistical  investigation  and 
psychological  analysis.  A  thousand  scientific 
men  in  the  United  States  will  doubtless  be 
willing  to  assist  in  furnishing  the  material 
needed,  which  is  in  any  case  accessible  from 
other  sources. 

The  accompanying  table,  which  with  most 
of  the  data  to  be  discussed  refers  approxi- 
mately to  January  1,  1903,  shows  how  Amer- 
ican men  of  science  are  distributed  among  the 
principal  sciences  by  various  agencies.*  There 
are  in  the  table  certain  facts  that  require 
allowance,  or  at  least  mention.  The  American 
Chemical  Society  and  the  doctorates  conferred 
in  chemistry  represent  in  part  professional 
work  in  applied  science.  Under  the  special 

of  computation  in  connection  with  this  research, 
I  have  received  a  grant  of  two  hundred  dollars 
from  the  Esther  Herrman  Research  Fund  of  the 
Scientific  Alliance  of  New  York. 

•The  distribution  among  the  sciences  of  those 
in  the  "  Biographical  Directory  of  American  Men 
of  Science"  (published  this  year  by  The  Science 
Press,  New  York)  differs  rather  more,  than  I  had 
expected  from  this  estimate,  which  was  based  on 
the  first  thousand  entries  that  were  written. 
There  are  in  the  "Directory"  4,131  names,  of 
whom  131  are  students  of  philosophy,  education, 
economics  and  sociology,  leaving  just  4,000  in  the 
twelve  sciences  under  consideration.  They  are 
distributed  among  the  sciences  as  follows: 
mathematics,  340;  physics,  672;  chemistry,  677; 
astronomy,  160;  geology,  444;  botany,  401;  zool- 
ogy, 441;  physiology,  105;  anatomy,  118;  pathol- 
ogy, 357;  anthropology,  91;  psychology,  194. 
These  figures  were  not  at  hand  when  it  was  neces- 
sary to  select  the  thousand  men  of  science  for 
this  research.  The  numbers  under  physics  and 
pathology  are  increased  by  the  inclusion  under 
these  sciences  of  engineers  and  physicians.  The 
chief  discrepancy  is  that  there  are  fewer  zoologists 
than  was  indicated  by  the  preliminary  estimate 
or  by  the  other  data  of  the  table. 


TABLE  I.      THE  NUMBEB  OF  AMEBICAN   MEN  OF  SCI- 
ENCE  AND   THEIB   DISTBIBUTION    AMONG 
THE  SCIENCES 


or] 
V 

a    . 

5- 

-g 

*o  § 

o  ^ 

fe 

£•2 

,5 

§  ^s 

i 

js"3 

£  a 

£jo 

ja 

15,33 

09 
"3 

o'o 

£3  O 

|1 

a  « 

££ 
>  <<-1 

0  V 

S  a 

03 

"b 

2-^a 

I 

00 

** 

*** 

a 
P 

Q* 

o'S 

CJSQ 

«   - 

Mathematics  .... 

375 

81 

i 

136 

61 

35 

46 

380 

Physics  

149 

167 

?3 

105 

6Q 

155 

73 

556 

Chemistry  

1933 

174 

1?, 

143 

137 

73 

166 

656 

Astronomy  

40 

41 

16 

48 

51 

212 

Geology  

?56 

13 

55 

3? 

161 

174 

436 

Botany  

169 

1?0 

7 

57 

53 

94 

70 

416 

Zoology  

?37 

146 

17 

83 

7? 

?43 

131 

620 

Physiology  

96 

10 

53 

18 

156 

Anatomy  

136 

10 

0 

56 

1 

13 

18 

116 

Pathology  

138 

14 

5 

68 

4 

44 

56 

224 

Anthropology.  .  .  . 

60 

60 

3 

4 

5 

66 

37 

92 

Psychology  

127 

40 

1 

37 

63 

58 

21 

136 

Total  

3801 

983 

96 

838 

531 

1002 

868 

4000 

SEDUCED   TO  PER  THOUSAND 


Mathematics  .... 

Physics 

Chemistry 

Astronomy 

Geology 

Botany 

Zoology 

Physiology 

Anatomy 

Pathology 

Anthropology .... 
Psychology 


99 
39 
506 
33 
68 
45 
63 
25 
36 
36 
16 
34 


32 


170  240 


177 

41 

123 

122 

149 

10 

10 

14 

61 

41 


10 


125 

125 

136 

73 

177 

21 

0 

52 
31 
10 


162 

125 

171 

49 

66 

68 

99 

63 

67 

81 

5 

44 


113 

128 

265 

30 

60 

99 

134 

34 

2 


118 


35 

155 

73 

47 

161 

94 

243 

22 

13 

44 

56 

57 


53 

84 

191 

59 

200 

81 

151 

29 

21 

64 

43 

24 


95 

139 

164 

53 

109 

104 

155 

39 

29 

56 

23 

34 


societies  there  are  duplications,  as  scientific 
men  may  belong  to  more  than  one  society. 
The  American  Mathematical  Society  and  the 
Association  of  American  Anatomists  have 
been  rather  liberal  in  the  admission  of  mem- 
bers. As  mathematics  and  the  medical  sci- 
ences are  required  subjects  for  large  groups 
of  students,  there  are  many  teachers,  but  this 
has  not  produced  a  proportional  number  of 
investigators.  The  membership  of  the  Na- 
tional Academy  represents  to  a  certain  extent 
the  interests  of  the  passing  scientific  genera- 
tion, the  doctorates  the  interests  of  the  com- 
ing scientific  generation. 

In  selecting  a  group  of  a  thousand  scien- 
tific men,  the  number  in  each  science  was 
taken  roughly  proportional  to  the  total  num- 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


539 


ber  of  investigators  in  that  science,  the  num- 
bers being:  chemistry,  175;  physics,  150; 
zoology,  150;  botany,  100;  geology,  100; 
mathematics,  80;  pathology,  60;  astronomy, 
50;  psychology,  50;  physiology,  40;  anatomy, 
25;  anthropology,  20. 

The  individuals  were  selected  by  asking  ten 
leading  representatives  of  each  science  to  ar- 
range the  students  of  that  science  in  the  order 
of  merit.  There  were  for  each  science  slips 
made  with  the  names  and  addresses  of  all 
those  known  to  have  carried  on  research  work 
of  any  consequence.  The  total  number  as- 
signed a  position  was  2,481,  distributed  among 
the  sciences  as  follows:  Mathematics,  201; 
physics,  261;  chemistry,  389;  astronomy,  165; 
geology,  257;  botany,  213;  zoology,  290; 
physiology,  101;  anatomy,  89;  pathology,  251; 
anthropology,  72;  psychology,  192.  These 
numbers  inAtoded  duplications  when  a  man 
was  given  a  p^ace  in  more  than  one  science. 

The  memorandum  sent  to  those  who  were 
asked  to  make  the  arrangement  was  as  follows : 

MEMORANDUM 

The  undersigned  is  making  a  study  of  American 
men  of  science.  The  first  problem  to  be  consid- 
ered is  the  distribution  of  scientific  men  among 
the  sciences  and  in  different  regions,  institutions, 
etc.,  including  the  relative  rank  of  this  country 
as  compared  with  other  countries  in  the  different 
sciences,  the  relative  strength  of  different  univer- 
sities, etc.  It  is  intended  that  the  study  shall 
be  continued  beyond  the  facts  of  distribution  to 
what  may  be  called  the  natural  history  of  scien- 
tific men. 

For  these  purposes  a  list  of  scientific  men  in 
each  science,  arranged  approximately  in  the  or- 
der of  merit,  is  needed.  This  can  best  be  secured 
if  those  who  are  most  competent  to  form  an 
opinion  will  independently  make  the  arrangement. 
The  average  of  such  arrangements  will  give  the 
most  valid  order,  and  the  degree  of  validity  will 
be  indicated  by  the  variation  or  probable  error 
of  position  for  each  individual. 

It  is  obvious  that  such  an  order  can  be  only 
approximate,  and  for  the  objects  in  view  an  ap- 
proximation is  all  that  is  needed.  The  judgments 
are  possible,  because  they  are  as  a  matter  of  fact 
made  in  elections  to  a  society  of  limited  member- 
ship, in  filling  chairs  at  a  university,  etc.  By 


merit  is  understood  contributions  to  the  advance- 
ment of  science,  primarily  by  research,  but  teach- 
ing, administration,  editing,  the  compilation  of 
text-books,  etc.,  should  be  considered.  The  dif- 
ferent factors  that  make  a  man  efficient  in  ad- 
vancing science  must  be  roughly  balanced.  An 
effort  may  be  made  later  to  disentangle  these 
factors. 

In  ranking  a  man  in  a  given  science  his  con- 
tributions to  that  science  only  should  be  con- 
sidered. Thus,  an  eminent  astronomer  may  also 
be  a  mathematician,  but  in  ranking  him  as  a 
mathematician  only  his  contributions  to  mathe- 
matics should  be  regarded.  In  such  a  case,  how- 
ever, mathematics  should  be  given  its  widest  in- 
terpretation. It  is  more  difficult  to  arrange  the 
order  when  the  work  can  not  readily  be  com- 
pared, as,  for  example,  systematic  zoology  and 
morphology,  but,  as  already  stated,  it  is  only 
expected  that  the  arrangement  shall  be  approxi- 
mate. The  men  should  be  ranked  for  work  ac- 
tually accomplished,  that  is,  a  man  of  sixty  and 
a  man  of  forty,  having  done  about  the  same 
amount  of  work,  should  come  near  together, 
though  the  man  of  forty  has  more  promise.  It 
may  be  possible  later  to  calculate  a  man's  value 
with  allowance  for  age. 

In  case  there  is  noted  the  omission  of  any 
scientific  man  from  the  list  who  should  probably 
have  a  place  in  the  first  three  quarters,  a  slip  may 
be  added  in  the  proper  place  with  his  name  and 
address.  In  case  there  are  names  on  the  list  re- 
garding which  nothing  is  known,  the  slips  should 
be  placed  together  at  the  end.  The  slips,  as  ar- 
ranged in  order,  should  be  tied  together  and  re- 
turned to  the  undersigned. 

It  is  not  intended  that  the  lists  shall  be  pub- 
lished, at  all  events  not  within  ten  years.  No 
individual  list  will  be  published.  They  will  ba 
destroyed  when  the  averages  have  been  calculated, 
and  the  arrangements  will  be  regarded  as  strictly 
confidential. 

The  ten  positions  assigned  to  each  man  were 
averaged,  and  the  average  deviations  of  the 
judgments  were  calculated.  This  gave  the 
most  probable  order  of  merit  for  the  students 
in  each  science,  together  with  data  for  the 
probable  error  of  the  position  of  each  indi- 
vidual. The  students  of  the  different  sciences 
were  then  combined  in  one  list  by  interpola- 
tion, the  probable  errors  being  adjusted  ac- 
cordingly. The  list  contains  1,443  names,  of 


540 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


whom  the  first  thousand  are  the  material  used 
in  this  research. 

It  should  be  distinctly  noted  that  the  fig- 
ures give  only  what  they  profess  to  give, 
namely,  the  resultant  opinion  of  ten  com- 
petent judges!  They  show  the  reputation  of 
the  men  among  experts,  but  not  necessarily 
their  ability  or  performance.  Constant  errors, 
euch  as  may  arise  from  a  man's  being  better 
or  less  known  than  he  deserves,  are  not  elimi- 
nated. There  is,  however,  no  other  criterion 
of  a  man's  work  than  the  estimation  in  which 
it  is  held  by  those  most  competent  to  judge. 
The  posthumous  reputation  of  a  great  man 
may  be  more  correct  than  contemporary  opin- 
ion, but  very  few  of  those  in  this  list  of  scien- 
tific men  will  be  given  posthumous  considera- 
tion. I  am  somewhat  sceptical  as  to  merit 
not  represented  by  performance,  or  as  to  per- 
formance unrecognized  by  the  best  contem-» 
porary  judgment.  There  are  doubtless  indi- 
vidual exceptions,  but,  by  and  large,  men  do 
what  they  are  able  to  do  and  find  their  proper 
level  in  the  estimation  of  their  colleagues. 

In  order  to  obtain  the  10  arrangements  in 
each  science,  or  120  in  all,  it  was  necessary 
to  ask  the  assistance  of  192  scientific  men. 
Twenty-three  of  these  did  not  reply  to  my 
letter;  16  declined  to  make  the  arrangement, 
usually  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  feasible ; 
23  consented,  but  afterwards  gave  it  up  or 
did  not  send  the  slips  in  time,  and  10  made 
arrangements  that  could  not  be  used,  in  most 
cases  because  the  names  were  arranged  in 
groups  instead  of  being  ordered  serially.  As 
the  arrangement  resulted,  those  who  made 
it  and  those  who  were  asked  but  failed  were 
distributed  in  the  different  hundreds  of  the 
thousand,  as  shown  in  Table  II. 

TABLE    II.       THE    STANDING    OF    THOSE    WHO    MADE 

THE    ABBANGEMENTS    AND   OF   THOSE   WHO 

WERE    ASKED    BUT    FAILED 


H) 

— 

HH 

M 

> 

£ 

> 

•—  < 

> 

X 

>-H 

K 

^ 

Pi 

3 

£ 

Observers  

47 
29 

26 
20 

20 
10 

9 
5 

6 
1 

3 
0 

1 

3 

1 

1 

3 

0 

4 
1 

0 
2 

120 
72 

Failed  

Total  .  . 

76 

46 

30 

14 

7 

3 

4 

2 

3 

5 

2 

192 

Thus  76  of  those  who  proved  to  be  in  the 
first  hundred  men  of  science  were  asked  to 
make  the  arrangement  and  47  of  them  did  so. 
Only  twelve  of  those  who  made  the  arrange- 
ment are  not  in  the  first  five  hundred.  In 
anthropology,  for  example,  there  are  only 
twenty  representatives  in  the  list,  of  whom 
but  two  would  probably  be  in  the  first  hun- 
dred, and  of  the  twelve  sciences  there  are  only 
three  that  would  be  expected  to  have  more 
than  ten  in  the  first  hundred.  It  is,  there- 
fore, evident  that  the  ten  scientific  men  who 
gave  the  judgments  in  each  science  are  among 
the  leaders  in  that  science.  But  their  stand- 
ing must  of  necessity  vary  with  the  different 
sciences,  one  half  of  all  the  anthropologists 
having  made  the  arrangement  and  only  two 
thirty-fifths  of  all  the  chemists. 

Those  asked  to  arrange  the  names  were  dis- 
tributed among  different  institutions,  as  shown 
in  Table  III. 

TABLE  III.     THE  DISTBIBUTION  AMONG  INSTITUTIONS 

OF  THOSE  WHO  WEBE  ASKED  TO  MAKE 

THE  ABBANGEMENTS 


Number  In 
1,000. 

Number 
Asked. 

'Sri 

S3 

*3 

04 

Number  of 
Observers 

Per  Cent. 
of  Observers. 

Per  Cent,  of 
Those  Asked. 

Harvard  

66.5 

?3 

35 

7 

10 

.30 

Columbia  

600 

?,0 

33 

13 

?1 

.65 

Chicago  

390 

17 

44 

15 

38 

.88 

Cornell  

335 

6 

18 

4 

1? 

.67 

Geological  Survey  

3?i  0 

7 

??, 

4 

1? 

57 

Depart,  of  Agriculture  .... 
Hopkins.  .                ... 

32.0 
30.5 

3 
13 

.09 
43 

3 
5 

.09 
16 

1.00 
.38 

Yale  

?65 

8 

30 

6 

?3 

.75 

Smithsonian  Institution  .  .  . 
Michigan  

22.0 
?00 

9 
9 

.41 
45 

5 

7 

.23 

35 

.55 

.78 

Wisconsin  

180 

3 

17 

?, 

11 

67 

Pennsylvania   

17.0 

10 

59 

fi 

35 

.60 

Stanford  

160 

3 

19 

3 

19 

1.00 

Princeton  

145 

3 

?1 

0 

0 

0 

New  York  University  

95 

5 

53 

4 

4? 

.80 

Clark  

70 

5 

71 

3 

43 

.60 

New  York  Bot.  Garden  .  .  . 
One  at  each  institution  .... 

6.0 

2 
46 

.33 
.08 

2 
31 

.33 
.06 

1.00 
.67 

Total.. 

192 

120 

Thus  23  scientific  men  connected  with 
Harvard  University  were  requested  to  sort 
out  the  slips;  this  was  done  by  7  of  them. 
Sixty-six  and  five  tenths  of  the  thousand, 


AMERICAN    MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


541 


as  the  list  resulted,  are  at  Harvard  Uni- 
versity; about  10  per  cent,  of  them  made 
the  arrangement,  which  is  about  30  per  cent, 
of  those  asked.  Seventeen  of  the  39  scien- 
tific men  at  the  University  of  Chicago  were 
asked  to  make  the  arrangement,  of  whom 
fifteen  accomplished  it  and  two  did  not.  Or 
38  per  cent,  of  all  its  men  made  the  arrange- 
ment, who  were  88  per  cent,  of  those  asked. 
The  numbers  are  in  most  cases  too  few  to 
give  a  correct  measure  of  the  cooperativeness 
in  such  a  scheme  of  the  different  institutions, 
but,  so  far  as  they  go,  they  are  not  altogether 
without  interest.  They  are  not,  however, 
printed  here  for  that  purpose,  but  in  order 
to  show  the  geographical  distribution  of  those 
who  made  the  arrangement.  It  appears  that 
different  institutions  are  fairly  well  repre- 
sented, there  being  no  great  preponderance 
of  any  one  of  them.  Of  the  120  who  made 
the  arrangement  89  are  connected  with  the  17 
institutions  given  in  the  table,  although  these 
institutions  contain  only  450  of  the  1,000  sci- 
entific men.  They,  however,  have,  as  will  be 
shown  later,  a  much  larger  proportion  of  the 
more  eminent  scientific  men. 

Those  who  made  the  arrangements  are  not 
likely  to  possess  equal  information,  impartial- 
ity and  good  judgment.  If  there  were  only 
two  arrangements  of  each  group  it  would  not 
be  possible  to  decide  objectively  which  is  the 
better.  We  have,  however,  ten  arrangements, 
and  the  average  is  more  likely  to  be  correct 
than  any  one  of  them.  The  conditions  are 
the  same  as  in  the  case  of  observations  in  the 
physical  sciences.  As  the  personal  equation 
of  the  astronomer  is  determined  by  comparing 
his  observations  with  those  of  other  astron- 


omers, so  here  we  can  measure  the  accuracy 
of  judgment  of  each  observer  by  determining 
how  far  it  departs  from  the  average  judgment. 

I  have  counted  up  the  departures  of  each  of 
the  ten  observers  from  the  average  result  for 
one  of  the  groups,  namely,  the  fifty  psychol- 
ogists. The  data  are  given  in  Table  IV.  by 
groups  of  ten. 

The  observer  A  is  always  more  accurate 
than  any  other  observer,  except  in  one  case 
in  the  fifty.  The  validity  of  judgment  of  the 
ten  observers  varies  from  7.9  to  17.26,  or  about 
as  1:2,  which  is  approximately  the  yariability 
that  I  have  found  in  normal  individuals  in 
other  mental  traits,  such  as  accuracy  of  per- 
ception, time  of  mental  processes,  memory,  etc. 
The  departures  from  the  mean  reliability  of' 
judgment,  given  in  the  last  line  of  the  table, 
indicate  that  accuracy  of  judgment  tends  in 
a  general  way  to  follow  the  normal  distribu- 
tion of  the  probability  curve,  though  with  so 
few  cases  this  may  be  accidental.  As  the 
validity  of  the  judgments  varies  to  a  measured 
degree,  the  arrangements  made  by  the  indi- 
viduals could  be  weighted.  I  have  not  under- 
taken the  somewhat  tedious  calculations  neces- 
sary ;  they  would  not  considerably  alter .  the 
order,  but  would  make  it  somewhat  more  exact, 
at  the  same  time  decreasing  the  probable 
errors. 

There  is  here  measured  for  the  first  time, 
I  think,  the  accuracy  or  reliability  of  judg- 
ment. This  is  obviously  a  complex  and  im- 
perfectly analyzed  trait,  depending  on  a  large 
number  of  varying  conditions.  A  man's  judg- 
ment may  be  good  in  some  directions  or  from 
certain  points  of  view,  and  bad  in  other  ways. 
Still  we  understand  vaguely  what  is  meant  by 


TABU;  iv.    MEASUREMENTS  OF  THE  ACCUBAOT  OP  JUDGMENT  OF  TEN  OBSERVERS 


A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

Average. 

I. 

1.6 

5.2 

2.3 

3.1 

1.9 

2.8 

1.8 

2.4 

5.0 

2.6 

2.87 

II. 

4.9 

7.0 

8.7 

7.8 

6.3 

4.2 

10.2 

6.1 

7.0 

5.1 

6.73 

III. 

7.1 

11.1 

13.5 

12.4 

24.2 

16.2 

12.5 

12.0 

16.9 

27.6 

15.35 

IV. 

13.8 

18.0 

16.7 

18.4 

18.8 

18.1 

22.7 

25.4 

21.9 

25.5 

19.93 

V. 

12.1 

17.4 

21.1 

21.1 

13.2 

26.6 

21.7 

24.7 

22.9 

25.5 

20.63 

Av. 

7.9 

11.74 

12.46 

12.56 

12.88 

13.58 

13.78 

14.12 

14.74 

17.26 

13.1 

A. 

—5.20 

—1.36 

—0.64 

—0.54 

—0.25 

+0.48 

+0.68 

+1.02 

+1-64 

+4-1* 

±1.60 

542 


AMERICAN    MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


good  judgment  and  value  the  trait  highly  in 
ourselves  and  in  others.  Thus  most  people 
complain  that  they  have  a  bad  memory,  but 
I  have  never  heard  any  one  acknowledge  that 
he  had  a  bad  judgment.  It  appears  that  the 
measurement  of  the  reliability  of  judgment 
of  individuals  may  have  wide-reaching  appli- 
cations in  civil  service  examinations  and  in 
all  cases  where  individuals  are  selected  for 
special  purposes,  a  balanced  judgment  being 
nearly  always  more  important  than  the  kind 
of  information  that  can  be  tested  by  a  written 
examination.  I  have  measured  the  accuracy 
of  observation  and  memory*  and  Dr.  F.  B. 
Sumner  has  measured  the  validity  of  beliefs.7 
When  we  learn  to  look  upon  our  observations, 
recollections,  beliefs  and  judgments  object- 
ively, stating  in  numbers  the  probability  of 
their  correctness  and  assigning  probable  errors 
to  them,  there  wi1!  be  an  extraordinary  change 
in  our  attitude  in  religion,  politics,  business 
and  all  the  affairs  of  life. 

There  are  two  cases  in  which  these  judg- 
ments were  subject  to  special  conditions  which 
it  may  be  worth  the  while  to  notice — that  in 
which  a  man  of  science  gave  his  own  position 
and  that  in  which  he  gave  the  positions  of  his 
immediate  colleagues.  In  sending  out  the 
slips,  nothing  was  said  as  to  whether  it  was 
expected  that  a  man  should  include  his  own 
name.  Of  the  120  who  made  the  arrange- 
ment, 34  gave  positions  to  themselves;  20 
assigned  positions  to  themselves  lower  than 
that  resulting  from  the  average  judgment, 
twelve  higher  positions  and  two  the  same  posi- 
tions. On  the  other  hand,  22  gave  themselves 
positions  higher  than  the  average  grade  (which 
is  lower  than  the  position,  being  related  to  it 
somewhat  as  the  average  is  to  the  median), 
ten  lower  and  two  the  same.  The  judg- 
ments were  somewhat  more  accurate  than 
the  average  judgments.  In  21  cases  the 
departures  from  the  mean  were  less  than  the 
average  departures  and  in  13  cases  they  were 

•"Measurements  of  the  Accuracy  of  Recollec- 
toin,"  SCIENCE,  N.  S.,  2:  761-6,  1895. 

' "  A  Statistical  Study  of  Belief,"  PsycJiol.  Rev., 
5:  616-31,  1898. 


larger.  It  thus  appears  that  there  is  on  the 
average  no  constant  error  in  judging  our- 
selves— we  are  about  as  likely  to  overestimate 
as  to  underestimate  ourselves,  and  we  can 
judge  ourselves  slightly  more  accurately  than 
we  are  likely  to  be  judged  by  one  of  our  col- 
leagues. We  can  only  know  ourselves  from 
the  reflected  opinions  of  others,  but  it  seems 
that  we  are  able  to  estimate  these  more  cor- 
rectly than  can  those  who  are  less  interested. 
There  are,  however,  wide  individual  differ- 
ences; several  observers  overestimate  them- 
selves decidedly,  while  others  underestimate 
themselves  to  an  equal  degree. 

We  tend  to  overestimate  the  positions  of 
our  immediate  colleagues,  though  the  de- 
parture from  the  average  judgment  is  not 
considerable.  Here  again  there  are  decided 
individual  differences;  thus  one  man  assigned 
positions  to  six  of  his  colleagues,  all  of  which 
were  above  the  average,  and  another  assigned 
positions  to  five  of  his  colleagues,  all  of  which 
were  below  the  average.  Most  of  us  also 
overestimate  those  whose  lines  of  research  are 
similar  to  our  own. 

These  factors  affect  the  order  of  the  names 
in  the  list  but  slightly,  though  they  increase 
the  probable  errors.  A  more  considerable  vari- 
ation is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  names  were 
divided  among  twelve  sciences,  whereas  the 
lines  between  the  sciences  are  artificial.  A 
man's  work  may  not  fall  naturally  in  one  of 
these  conventional  sciences,  or  it  may  fall  in 
two  or  more  of  them.  In  such  cases  he  is 
likely  to  receive  a  lower  position  than  he  de- 
serves. It  is  not  clear  how  this  difficulty 
could  have  been  avoided,  for  if  more  depart- 
ments of  science  had  been  used,  the  over- 
lapping would  have  been  greater. 

Table  V.  gives  the  cases  in  which  the  thou- 
sand scientific  men  were  given  places  in  the 
lists  of  two  or  more  sciences,  even  though  in 
the  science  in  which  they  were  given  the  lower 
position  they  did  not  come  within  the  thou- 
sand, but  only  in  the  1,443  who  made  up  the 
total  list.  The  horizontal  lines  of  the  table 
give  those  who  were  assigned  the  higher  posi- 
tion in  the  science  named,  and  the  vertical 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


543 


lines  those  who  were  assigned  the  lower  posi- 
tion. Thus  there  was  one  man  whose  higher 
position  was  in  mathematics,  but  who  was 
also  given  a  position  in  physics,  and  there 
were  eleven  men  who  are  primarily  physicists 
and  secondarily  mathematicians.  There  are 
93  men  who  have  a  position  in  two  sciences, 
five  who  have  a  position  in  three  sciences  and 
one  who  has  a  position  in  four  sciences.  It 
thus  appears  that  about  one  tenth  of  our  sci- 
entific men  do  work  of  some  importance  in 
more  than  one  of  the  twelve  sciences  here 
defined. 

TABLE  V.      THE  HT7MBEBS   OF  THOSE  WHO  WEBB  AS- 
SIGNED A  POSITION  IN  MOBE  THAN  ONE  SCIENCE 


.§ 

tA 

MI 

»A 

^ 

Ml 

cm 

« 

B 

-« 

so 

t*» 

Ml 

0 

a 

r^ 

O 

o 

fi 

OQ 

.*- 

a 

| 

0 

o 

o 

P. 

o 

0> 

^* 

s 

o 

0 

O 

CO 

5 

J3 

•3 

ii 

sj 

n 

.J 

« 

N" 

B 

09 

ja 

5 

8 

^ 

£ 

P, 

O 

* 

Mathematics  .  . 



i 

3 

1 

i 

6 

Physics  

1  -I 

i 

4 

1 

17 

Chemistry  .... 

3 

3 

2 

1 

9 

Astronomy  .... 

9 

— 

9 

Geology  

1 



1 

9 

? 

6 

Botany  

1 

9 

1 

4 

Zoology  

4 



3 

15 

1 

23 

Physiology  .... 

2 

1 

4 

2 

9 

Anatomy  

4 

3 

__ 

1 

1 

9 

Pathology  

3 

2 

1 

6 

Anthropology  .  . 

1 

4 

— 

1 

6 

Psychology  .... 

1 

1 

— 

2 

20 

4 

7 

8 

12 

1 

6 

11 

23 

8 

1 

5 

106 

The  chief  interest  of  the  table  is  that  it 
gives  a  certain  measure  of  the  relationships 
of  the  sciences.  Thus  mathematics,  physics 
and  astronomy,  on  the  one  hand,  and  zoology, 
anatomy  and  physiology,  on  the  other,  are  the 
most  closely  interrelated  groups.  This  might 
have  been  foreseen,  but  the  table  gives  the 
definite  relations.  There  are  but  few  who  are 
anatomists  only,  whereas  botany  is  the  science 
which  is  the  least  likely  to  be  combined  with 
any  other.  One  of  the  most  serious  obstacles 
to  the  advancement  of  science  is  the  lack  of 
men  who  are  expert  both  in  an  exact  and  in  a 
natural  or  biological  science. 

There  are  in  all  the  leading  countries  acad- 
emies of  science,  whose  membership  is  sup- 


posed to  consist  of  their  most  eminent,  scien- 
tific men,  and  one  of  the  principal  functions 
of  such  academies  appears  to  be  the  election 
of  members  as  an  honor.  The  methods  of 
selection  used  in  this  research  are  more  ac- 
curate than  those  of  any  academy  of  sciences, 
and  it  might  seem  that  the  publication  of  the 
list  would  be  as  legitimate  as  that  of  a  list 
of  our  most  eminent  men  selected  by  less  ade- 
quate methods.  But  perhaps  its  very  accuracy 
would  give  it  a  certain  brutality. 

Of  the  first  hundred  scientific  men  on  the 
list  who  are  eligible,  61  are  included  among 
the  97  members  of  the  National  Academy  of 
Sciences,  and  of  the  first  30  men  on  the  list  28 
are  members  of  the  academy.  The  elections 
to  the  academy  tend  to  follow  the  list  pretty 
closely  in  the  order  in  which  men  are  arranged 
in  the  separate  sciences — usually  falling  within 
the  probable  error  of  position.  But  the  acad- 
emy has  no  method  of  comparing  performance 
in  difference  sciences,  and  if  one  science  has 
less  than  its  proper  representation,  the  dis- 
parity is  likely  to  increase  rather  than  to  de- 
crease. Thus  there  are  in  the  country  about 
half  as  many  astronomers  as  botanists,  but 
there  are  twice  as  many  astronomers  in  the 
academy.  The  second  principal  variation  in 
the  membership  of  the  academy  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  men  do  not  always  retain  the  posi- 
tions that  they  hold  when  elected.  Apart 
from  the  somewhat  greater  accuracy,  the  su- 
periority of  this  list  consists  in  the  assignment 
of  probable  errors  of  position.  Thus  the  prob- 
able error  at  the  close  of  the  first  hundred  is 
about  25  places,  that  is,  there  are  about  25 
men  not  in  an  ideal  academy  of  a  hundred, 
whose  chances  of  belonging  there  are  at  least 
one  in  four.  A  list  such  as  this  would  also 
give  us  academies  of  any  desired  size — the 
sixty  most  eminent  men  of  science,  as  in  the 
Paris  Academy,  the  hundred  or  thereabouts 
as  in  the  National  Academy,  or  the  450  or 
thereabouts,  as  in  the  Eoyal  Society. 

While  under  existing  conditions  of  senti- 
ment, the  publication  of  a  list  of  our  thousand 
leading  men  of  science  in  the  order  of  merit 
with  the  probable  errors  would  not  be  toler- 


544 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


ated,  I  have  indicated  those  who  are  included 
in  the  thousand  in  my  "  Biographical  Direct- 
ory of  American  Men  of  Science,"  a  work  of 
reference  that  may  be  regarded  as  a  by- 
product of  this  study.  I  did  this  with  some 
hesitation,  but  it  seemed  best  to  place  on 
record  those  who  were  the  subjects  of  this 
research,  more  especially  as  this  could  be  done 
without  any  invidiousness.  The  probable 
error  toward  the  end  of  the  list  is  about  100 
places,  so  there  are  one  hundred  others  who 
have  at  least  one  chance  in  four  of  belonging 
to  this  group.  Further,  several  scientific  men 
of  standing  were  omitted  from  the  lists  as 
originally  drawn  up,  and  were  not  considered 
in  making  the  arrangements.  Consequently, 
while  each  of  those  indicated  in  the  Biograph- 
ical Directory  is  probably  one  of  the  leading 
thousand  American  men  of  science,  there  are 
others  not  indicated  who  belong  to  this  group. 
This,  however,  is  a  minor  factor,  and  we  have 
with  sufficient  accuracy  for  statistical  purposes 
a  group  of  the  leading  thousand  American 
men  of  science  arranged  in  the  order  of  merit 
with  the  probable  errors  of  position  known. 

THE    MEASUREMENT   OF    SCIENTIFIC    MERIT 

Many  of  the  problems  that  the  writer  had 
in  view  in  the  present  research  might  be 
solved  by  the  study  of  any  group  of.  a  thou- 
sand American  men  of  science,  so  long  as 
they  had  been  objectively  selected.  The  ob- 
jective selection  of  a  group  sufficiently  large 
for  statistical  treatment  is,  however,  essential. 
As  cases  can  be  quoted  to  illustrate  the  cure 
of  nearly  every  disease  by  almost  any  medi- 
cine, so  examples  can  be  given  in  support  of 
any  psychological  or  sociological  theory.  The 
method  of  anecdote,  as  used  by  Lombroso, 
may  be  readable  literature,  but  it  is  not  sci- 
ence. A  thousand  names  might  have  been 
selected  by  lot  from  all  the  scientific  men  of 
the  country,  assuming  a  list  to  have  been 
available,  but  a  group  of  the  thousand  leading 
men  of  science  arranged  in  the  order  of  merit 
has  certain  advantages.  Information  in  re- 
gard to  tham  can  be  better  obtained  than  in 
the  case  of  those  who  are  more  obscure.  Cor- 


relations can  be  determined  between  degrees 
of  scientific  merit  and  various  conditions. 
The  comparison  with  a  similar  group  selected 
ten  or  twenty  years  hence,  or  with  a  similar 
group  of  British,  French  or  German  men  of 
science,  would  give  interesting  results.  The 
list  itself,  if  printed  after  an  interval  of 
twenty  years,  would  be  a  historical  document 
of  value.  Lastly,  the  data  can  be  so  used  as 
to  carry  quantitative  methods  a  little  way 
into  a  region  that  has  hitherto  been  outside 
the  range  of  exact  science.  It  is  the  last 
problem  that  I  wish  to  take  up  in  this  paper. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  we  have  in  each 
science  the  workers  in  that  science  arranged 
in  the  supposed  order  of  merit  by  ten  com- 
petent judges,  who  made  their  arrangements 
independently.  If  the  ten  arrangements 
agreed  exactly,  we  should  have  complete  con- 
fidence in  the  result,  except  in  so  far  as  it 
was  affected  by  systematic  or  constant  errors. 
If  there  were  no  agreement  at  all,  the  futility 
of  any  attempt  to  estimate  scientific  merit 
would  be  made  clear.  The  conditions  are 
naturally  intermediate.  There  is  a  certain 
amount  of  agreement  and  a  certain  amount 
of  difference  of  opinion.  Thus  taking,  for 
example,  the  ten  astronomers — I.,  II.,  III., 
etc. — whose  average  positions  were  the  highest, 
the  order  given  to  them  by  each  of  the  ten 
observers,  A,  B,  C,  etc.,  is  as  shown  in 
Table  I. 

Here  we  find  complete  agreement  that  I. 
is  our  leading  astronomer.  He  has  been  se- 
lected as  such  by  nine  competent  judges  from 
the  160  astronomers  of  the  country."  The 
probability  that  this  is  due  to  chance  is  en- 
tirely negligible.  II.  stands  next  in  scientific 
merit.  He  is  placed  second  by  four  of  the 
observers,  third  by  two,  fourth  by  three  and 
ninth  by  one.  The  conditions  are  similar  to 
observations  in  the  exact  sciences.  The  av- 
erage position  or  grade  is  3.5,  and  the  prob- 
able error  of  this  position  is  0.45,  i.  e.,  the 

*  In  three  cases  where  a  question  mark  appears 
the  astronomer  did  not  give  a  position  to  himself. 
In  one  case  the  name  was  not  included  among  the 
slips. 


AMERICAN   MEN   OP    SCIENCE 


545 


TABLE  I.      THE  OBDEB   ASSIGNED  TO   TEN    ASTEONOMEBS   BY  TEN   OBSEBVEBS 


I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

A 

1 

2 

4 

3 

10 

6 

9 

5 

11 

8 

B 

1 

4 

2 

5 

6 

? 

9 

3 

8 

7 

C 

1 

4 

? 

5 

2 

*16 

6 

17 

7 

*21 

D 

? 

2 

4 

3 

1 

5 

7 

13 

8 

6 

E 

1 

*9 

2 

5 

6 

3 

8 

4 

7 

11 

F 

1 

4 

10 

2 

5 

6 

3 

7 

8 

11 

O 

1 

3 

5 

*16 

2 

6 

7 

13 

4 

8 

H 

1 

3 

5 

7 

6 

4 

9 

? 

8 

2 

I 

1 

2 

8 

4 

10 

6 

7 

3 

11 

5 

J 

1 

2 

4 

5 

12 

8 

3 

6 

13 

7 

AV. 

1.0 

3.5 

4.8 

5.5 

6.0 

6.6 

6.8 

7.8 

8.5 

8.6 

av. 

1.0 

2.9 

4.8 

4.3 

6.0 

5.5 

6.8 

7.8 

8.5 

7.2 

m.v. 

0.0 

1.4 

1.9 

2.4 

2.8 

2.3 

1.7 

4.3 

1.9 

3.4 

P.E. 

0.0 

.45 

.59 

.84 

.84 

.85 

.48 

1.15 

.54 

1.09 

p.e. 

0.0 

.39 

.57 

.68 

.79 

.69 

.48 

1.28 

.54 

.96 

chances  are  even  that  this  grade  is  correct 
within  one  half  of  a  unit.  The  grade  of  the 
astronomer  who  stands  third  is  4.8,  and  that 
of  the  astronomer  who  stands  fourth  is  5.5. 
There  is  consequently  one  chance  in  about 
fifty  that  II.  deserves  a  grade  as  low  as  that 
of  III.,  and  one  in  about  one  thousand  that 
he  deserves  a  grade  as  low  as  that  of  IV.  The 
order  thus  has  a  high  degree  of  validity,  and 
this  has  itself  been  measured.  As  we  go 
further  down  the  list,  the  probable  errors  tend 
to  increase,  the  order  is  less  certain,  and  the 
difference  in  merit  between  a  man  and  his 
neighbor  on  the  list  is  less.  The  variations 
in  the  sizes  of  the  probable  errors  are,  as  a 
rule,  significant.  When  the  error  is  small 
the  work  of  the  man  is  such  that  it  can  be 
judged  with  accuracy;  when  it  is  larger  it  is 
because  the  work  is  more  difficult  to  estimate. 
The  probable  errors  depend  on  the  assump- 
tion that  the  individual  deviations  follow  the 
exponential  law,  and  they  do  so  in  sufficient 
measure  for  the  purposes  in  view.  For  those 
near  the  top  of  the  list,  the  distribution  of 
errors  is  "  skewed  "  in  the  negative  direction, 
that  is,  there  are  relatively  more  large  nega- 
tive than  positive  errors.  Thus  in  the  table 
there  are  four  judgments  marked  with  a  star, 
the  deviation  of  each  of  which  is  more  than 
three  times  the  average  deviation,  and  these 
observations  would  be  omitted  by  an  ap- 
proximate application  of  Chauvenet's  cri- 
36 


terion.  If  these  four  observations  are  omit- 
ted, the  grades  of  the  ten  astronomers  are 
those  given  in  the  second  line  of  averages. 
The  omitted  judgments  are  not  extremely 
divergent,  barely  exceeding  the  limits  set  by 
Chauvenet's  criterion,  and  I  do  not  regard 
them  as  invalid.  Indeed,  I  believe  that  in 
view  of  the  presence  of  systematic  errors  in 
these  estimates  the  chance  that  they  represent 
correct  values  is  greater  than  that  assigned 
by  a  strict  application  of  the  theory  of  proba- 
bilities. But  the  incidence  of  an  extreme 
judgment  might  in  special  cases  do  injustice 
to  an  individual,  and  in  the  order  used  Chau- 
venet's criterion  has  been  applied.'  This 
means  that  a  compromise  has  been  adopted 
between  the  median  and  the  average  judg- 

•  Among  the  some  15,000  observations  under 
consideration  several  variations  might  be  expected 
to  occur  in  a  normal  distribution  as  much  as  six 
times  as  large  as  the  probable  error,  and  among 
the  1,500  or  more  individuals,  several  might  be 
expected  to  deserve  positions  departing  consider- 
ably from  those  assigned.  But  assuming  that  we 
have  "  normal  errors "  to  deal  with,  there  is  no 
reason  why  the  particular  individuals'  on  whom 
the  divergent  errors  fall  should  receive  them 
rather  than  any  other  individuals.  Such  errors 
should  apparently  be  distributed  among  all  the 
individuals.  Similar  conditions  must  occur  in 
the  case  of  errors  of  observation  in  the  exact 
sciences,  but  so  far  as  I  am  aware  their  signifi- 
cance has  not  been  considered. 


546 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


ment;  but  the  departure  from  the  average 
judgment  is  small,  affecting  less  than  one  fifth 
of  the  individuals  and  only  to  a  slight  degree. 
The  average  deviations  and  probable  errors 
used  are  those  found  when  all  the  judgments 
are  included.  Two  probable  errors  are  given 
in  the  table,  the  first  obtained  through  the 
error  of  mean  square,  the  second  by  taking  it 
as  directly  proportional  to  the  average  devia- 
tion. The  differences  are  not  significant,  and 
for  work  of  this  character  I  regard  it  as  use- 
less to  calculate  the  probable  errors  by  the 
ordinary  formula.  I  have  published  else- 
where10 a  more  technical  discussion  of  the 
treatment  of  errors  or  deviations  of  this  char- 
acter, and  may  return  to  the  subject  at  some 
subsequent  time.  The  theory  of  errors  com- 
monly applied  in  the  exact  sciences  is  too 
crude  for  psychology,  and  probably  for  the 
sciences  in  which  it  is  used.  Progress  here 
will  be  blocked  until  there  are  psychologists 
who  are  mathematicians  or  mathematicians 
who  are  psychologists. 

In  order  to  illustrate  further  the  serial  dis- 
tribution and  the  probable  errors,  I  have 
made  a  diagram  for  the  fifty  psychologists. 
The  grade  of  each,  no  judgments  being  omit- 
ted, is  shown  by  the  vertical  mark,  and  the 
length  of  the  line  indicates  the  probable  error 
or  range  within  which  the  chances  are  even 
that  the  true  position  falls.  Thus  the  psy- 
chologist who  stands  first  on  the  list,  was,  like 
the  astronomer,  given  this  position  by  the  in- 
dependent judgment  of  all.  The  psychologist 
who  stands  second  has,  as  shown  on  the  dia- 
gram, a  position  of  3.7  and  a  probable  error 
of  0.5,  i.  e.,  the  position  3.7  is  the  most  prob- 
able, but  the  true  position  is  equally  likely 
to  be  within  the  short  horizontal  line,  between 
3.2  and  4.2,  or  outside  it.  It  must,  however, 
be  remembered  that  the  chances  of  the  true 
position  being  far  outside  the  range  of  this 
line  decrease  very  rapidly.  Over  it  is  roughly 
drawn  the  bell-shaped  curve  of  the  normal 
probability  integral.  The  true  position  is 
along  the  base  line  covered  by  this  curve,  and 
the  chances  of  its  being  at  any  given  point 

'•Am.  Journ.  of  Psychol.,  14:  312-328,  1903. 


are  proportional  to  the  ordinate  or  height  of 
the  curve  above  the  base  line.  There  is  only 
one  chance  in  about  six  that  the  true  grade 
is  above  2.7  or  below  4.7,  and  only  one  chance 
in  about  150  that  the  true  grade  is  above  1.7 
or  below  5.7.  It  will  be  seen  from  the  dia- 
gram that  while  the  positions  of  the  psycholo- 
gists II.,  III.  and  IV.  are  the  most  probable, 
the  relative  order  is  not  determined  with  cer- 
tainty. On  the  other  hand,  the  chances  are 
some  10,000  to  one  that  each  of  these  psy- 
chologists stands  below  I.  and  above  V. 

It  is  evident  that  the  probable  errors  in- 
crease in  size  as  we  go  down  the  list.      The 


X— 


10 


30 


foO 


FlO.  1.     The  positions  and  probable  errors  of 
the  fifty  psychologists. 

curve  of  distribution  drawn  over  No.  XL.  in- 
dicates that  the  chances  are  even  that  the  true 
position  falls  between  the  grades  of  XXXIV. 
and  L.  and  that  there  is  one  chance  in  four 
that  he  does  not  belong  among  our  fifty  lead- 
ing psychologists.  The  increase  in  the  size 
of  the  probable  errors  is  irregular,  it  being 
more  difficult  to  assign  a  position  to  some 
men  than  to  others. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  psychologists  fall 
into  groups,  the  first  twenty  being  set  off  from 
the  next  group,  though  the  two  groups  are 
bridged  over  by  three  cases.  At  this  point 
also  the  probable  errors  become  almost  sud- 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


547 


denly  about  three  times  as  large.  There  are 
altogether  about  200  psychologists  in  the 
country,  and  it  looks  as  if  the  first  tenth 
forms  a  separate  group  of  leaders.  There  is 
a  similar,  though  less  marked  group  of  the 
first  twenty  astronomers,  but  these  groups 
seem  to  be  partly  accidental.  There  is,  how- 
ever, as  shown  below,  an  inflection  point  in 
the  curve  of  distribution  after  about  the  first 
tenth  of  our  scientific  men.  The  first  twenty 
psychologists  fall  into  four  distinct  groups, 
and  there  are  groupings  in  the  other  sciences. 
They  do  not,  however,  appear  to  be  sufficiently 
marked  to  lead  us  to  distinguish  species,  such 
as  men  of  genius  and  men  of  talent.  It  is, 
however,  possible  that  the  complicated  condi- 
tions may  ultimately  be  analyzed  so  as  to  give 
such  groups. 

The  probable  errors  not  only  tell  the  accu- 
racy with  which  the  psychologists  can  be  ar- 
ranged in  the  order  of  merit,  but  they  also 
measure  the  differences  between  them.  This, 
indeed,  I  regard  as  the  most  important  result 
of  this  paper,  as  science  is  advanced  chiefly 
by  the  extension  of  quantitative  methods,  and 
it  might  not  have  been  foreseen  that  it  would 
be  possible  to  measure  degrees  of  scientific 
merit.  Our  data  are  concerned  with  the 
recognition  of  scientific  performance,  not  with 
abstract  ability,  if  such  a  thing  is  conceivable. 
Merit  is  in  performance,  not  in  non-perform- 
ance, and  expert  judgment  is  the  best,  and  in 
the  last  resort  the  only,  criterion  of  perform- 
ance. 

The  difference  in  scientific  merit  between 
any  two  of  the  psychologists  whose  positions 
and  probable  errors  are  shown  in  the  chart  is 
directly  as  the  distance  between  them  and 
inversely  as  their  probable  errors.  If  two  of 
them  are  close  together  on  the  scale,  and  if 
the  probable  errors  are  large,  the  difference 
between  them  is  small,  and  conversely. 

If  the  psychologists  II.  and  III.  were  sepa- 
rated by  0.5  and  their  probable  errors  were 
0.5,  as  is  approximately  the  case,  then  the 
difference  between  them  is  so  small  that  there 
is  one  chance  in  four  that  the  position  of  III. 
is  above  the  grade  of  II.  If  again  the  psy- 


chologists XL.  and  XLIX.  were  separated  by 
6  and  their  probable  errors  were  6,  as  is  ap- 
proximately the  case,  then  there  is  again  one 
chance  in  four  that  the  true  position  of 
XLIX.  is  above  the  grade  of  XL.  The  dif- 
ference between  II.  and  III.  is  thus  about  the 
same  as  that  between  XL.  and  XLIX. 

If  we  take  the  fifty  psychologists  in  groups 
of  10,  and  thus  partly  eliminate  the  chance 
variations,  the  average  probable  errors  of  the 
five  groups  are  0.7,  1.8,  4.2,  5.8,  6.2.  These 
probable  errors  are  subject  to  a  correction  for 
the  range  covered  by  the  grades.  Thus  the 
first  ten  cover  a  range  of  about  eleven  points, 
and  the  last  ten  a  range  of  about  six  points, 
and  the  differences  between  the  psychologists 
at  the  top  of  the  list  would  be  nearly  twice  as 
great  as  between  those  at  the  bottom  of  the 
list  if  the  probable  errors  were  the  same. 
When  we  take  account  of  both  factors,  the 
probable  errors  in  the  five  groups  are  0.6,  1.9, 
1.8,  6.4  and  10.7.  While  the  probable  errors 
are  determined  with  a  considerable  degree  of 
exactness,  which  is  itself  measured,  the  ranges 
covered  by  the  grades  seem  to  depend  on  the 
special  conditions  in  the  science;  they  are  not 
the  same  in  the  different  sciences,  and  their 
validity  can  not  be  determined  with  any 
exactness.  Subject,  however,  to  a  consider- 
able probable  error,  the  range  of  merit  covered 
by  the  fifty  psychologists  is  inversely  as  the 
figures  given,  and  reduced  to  a  scale  of  100 
would  be:  55.6,  17,5,  18.5,  5.2  and  3.2. 

Thus  we  can  say  that  the  psychologists  at 
the  top  of  the  list  are  likely  to  differ  from 
each  other  about  18  times  as  much  as  the 
psychologists  at  the  bottom  of  the  list.  We 
have  no  zero  point  from  which  we  can  meas- 
ure psychological  merit.  Men  who  are  6  ft. 
2  in.  tall  are  likely  to  differ  from  each  other 
about  ten  times  as  much  as  men  who  are 
about  5  ft.  8  in.  tall,  though  the  difference 
in  their  height  is  only  as  68 :  74.  Even  though 
we  assumed  the  zero  point  to  be  where  psy- 
chological performance  begins  or  at  the  sur- 
vival minimum  of  human  ability,  we  should 
only  obtain  relative  differences. 

The  astronomers  and  the  psychologists  have 


548 


AMERICAN   MEN   OP    SCIENCE 


been  used  as  illustrations.  The  number  of 
students  of  astronomy  and  of  psychology  in 
the  country  does  not  differ  greatly,  and  it  is 
assumed  that  they  represent  an  equal  range  of 
scientific  merit.  It  is  possible  that  it  requires 
more  ability  to  be  an  astronomer  than  to  be 
a  psychologist,  and  it  is  equally  possible  that, 
in  view  of  the  larger  endowments,  longer 
history  and  more  conventional  problems,  less 
ability  will  suffice  for  the  astronomer.  The 
curves  of  distribution  might  also  vary;  for 
example,  it  might  be  relatively  easier  to  be 
an  astronomer  of  moderate  performance,  but 
more  difficult  to  be  a  great  astronomer.  There 
are  indications  of  such  differences,  but  the 
data  at  hand  do  not  disclose  them  with  any 
degree  of  certainty. 

There  are  100  geologists  and  100  botanists 
on  the  list,  who  are  about  one  fourth  of  all 
the  geologists  and  botanists  of  the  country. 
These  are  assumed  to  cover  about  the  same 
range  of  scientific  merit  as  the  astronomers 


or  the  psychologists.  The  average  difference 
between  the  geologists  would  consequently  be 
about  half  that  between  the  astronomers,  and 
the  probable  errors  of  position  should  theoret- 
ically be  about  twice  as  large.  The  anthro- 
pologists are  the  smallest  class  of  scientific 
men,  numbering  in  all  about  ninety,  of  whom 
20  are  included  in  the  thousand  under  con- 
sideration. They  are  again  assumed  to  cover 
a  range  of  performance  equal  to  that  of  the 
astronomers  or  geologists,  the  average  differ- 
ence between  them  being  two  and  a  half  times 
as  great  as  between  the  astronomers  or  five 
times  as  great  as  between  the  geologists.  The 
chemists  are  the  most  numerous  class  of  scien- 
tific men,  175  being  included  in  the  thousand. 
There  are  150  physicists,  150  zoologists,  80 
mathematicians,  60  pathologists,  40  physiolo- 
gists and  25  anatomists. 

In  the  accompanying  table  are  given  the 
grades  and  probable  errors  of  the  twenty  men 
of  science  who  were  assigned  positions  at  the 


TABLE  rr. 


GBADES    AND    PEOBABLE   EEEORS    OF    THE    TWENTT    MEN    OF    SCIENCE    WHO    STAND    FIRST    IN 
EACH   OF   THE   SCIENCES 


« 

bo 

X 

~s 

J 

L 

a 

Q 

bo 

x 

bo 

B 

-a 

bo 

o 

M 
« 

a 

•3 

a 

o 

• 

o 

[o 

o 

"o 

a. 
o 

o 

rt 

I 

g 

O 

I 

1 

O 

~o 

pa 

"o 
o 
N 

e 

a 

a 
I 

1 

a 

•§ 

>      w 

>       H 

•        a 

*    w 

*•       H 

>     w 

>•       W 

>     w 

>        H 

>      H! 

>      W 

>      W' 

^           DJ 

^J        OH 

J 

•*       P* 

•<       OH' 

•<       fc 

<{         P-I 

•<      a! 

•<      ft 

•<      fe 

^                 • 

I. 

2.5     .6 

1.6     .7 

3.6       .6 

1.0     0 

2.5     .4 

2.9     .8 

2.7     .2 

2.0     .3 

1.5     .3 

1.0      0 

1.7     .2 

1.0     0 

II. 

3.3  3.0 

3.2  2.5 

4.4       .5  *2.9     .4 

3.3     .4 

3.3     .5 

3.2  1.0 

2.6     .3 

*1.8    .2 

3.9     .3    2.6     .2    3.0     .5 

III. 

3.7    .7 

8.7  2.7 

5.5     1.7  *4.3     .6 

5.4  1.6 

5.0  1.6 

4.3  1.3 

*4.3     .5 

5.7  1.0 

3.9  1.5    2.7    .8:  3.2    .4 

IV. 

5.7    .5 

9.0    .8 

6.8     1.2 

4.8    .5 

7.0  2.2 

6.7  1.1 

4.6     .9 

5.7    .5 

6.6  1.3 

4.8     .6:  4.5     .4    4.4     .6 

V. 

5.7  1.6 

9.6  7.9 

8.8    1.5 

5.5    .7 

8.8  1.2 

7.1  3.9 

7.0    .9 

6.1     .6 

*6.7     .9 

8.6  1.7 

4.6  1.1 

6.2    .9 

VI. 

*5.7  3.9 

11.5  1.8 

9.7    1.4 

6.0    .8 

11.3  1.9 

7.5    .6 

8.9     .9 

6.2  1.1 

7.0  1.2 

11.1  1.5 

7.2  1.0 

7.1  1.2 

VII. 

9.2  1.0 

*11.7  6.7    9.8    1.6 

6.8    .4 

12.2  1.5 

8.1  2.6 

12.6  5.2 

7.5  1.1 

8.0  1.2 

12.0  2.7 

8'.4     .7    7.2  2.3 

VIII. 

9.6  3.6 

11.8  2.1  11.4     1.7 

7.2  1.0 

17.1  2.3    8.5     .8 

13.1  1.5 

10.3     .8    *8.5  1.4 

13.3     .7    8.5     .9    7.5  1.2 

IX. 

12.1  2.0 

12.0  5.3  15.5    2.9 

7.8  1.2 

17.1  2.5  11.3  1.7 

13.4  1.8 

11.0    .9    *8.8    .8 

14.8  5.6  10.4  1.6    8.0     .3 

X. 

13.1  1.5 

12.2  1.7  15.8    1.5 

8.0    .5 

18.3  2.5  12.3  1.8 

14.1  1.8 

13.0    .8  *15.2  1.7 

16.9  3.7,11.0    .8    9.5    .6 

XI. 

14.0  1.3 

13.5  1.7 

16.4    6.1 

10.2     .3 

19.3  4.5 

13.2  1.3 

17.3  5.0 

15.2  1.7  *15.7  2.2 

17.6  2.5 

11.4  1.5  12.3  1.1 

XII. 

14.6  2,0 

14.2  6.2  16.8    3.6  11.0     .3 

19.4  3.7  13.7  1.9    17.6  5.2 

15.7  2.2  *16.2  2.2 

18.0  2.6  15.8  2.4  14.7  1.4 

XIII. 

14.7  3.1 

14.8  8.0  17.8    3.7 

13.6  1.1 

19.4  4.6  14.8  1.3  *19.1  5.0    19.1  3.1  *16.4  1.5 

18.5  4.1  17.5  1.817.1  1.5 

XIV 

17.4  1.7 

18.3  3.5  19.8    3.7  14.2  1.2 

19.5  2.9  16.3  1.9    19.7  2.2    20.1  2.6    16.8  2.1  *20.6  2.2  18.0  1.2  17.9  2.3 

XV. 

19.1  3.4 

19.4  4.8  20.7     1.5  14.3     .4 

21.5  2.919.8  2.0 

20.1  2.9 

21.2  2.2 

18.5  2.3 

22.7  3.6 

18.6  1.8 

18.1  2.3 

XVI. 

21.5  2.8 

19  5  2.2  21.3     3.4 

17.0    .7 

22.1  2.3  20.2  3.2 

20.4  3.4 

*21.3  2.7 

18.6  2.3 

25.5  2.7  19.1  1.6  18.7  1.5 

XVII. 

21.8  3.1 

19.7  5.622.0    4.621.4  1.4 

22.2  1.5  23.9  3.9    20.8  3.1 

21.8  2.2    18.8  4.0    26.8  2.719.5  1.419.2  1.1 

XVIII.  *22.8  2.6 

21.1  2.3  24.7     2.5  22.7  1.2  *24.8  5.1  27.2  4.0    20.8  3.5 

22.4  3.0    19.3  1.5    27.4  4.4  20.5  1.7  19.6  1.6 

XIX 

23.1  2.9    21.2  3.7  25.3     6.4  22.9  3.0    26.5  3.5  27.9  3.2    23.0  3.2 

24.4  3.0    21.1  1.9    27.5  4.5  21.8  1.5  20.0  3.4 

XX 

23.8  2.6 

22.1  4.9  25.4  12.7  23.3  2.6  *27.4  4.5  27.9  4.5    24.4  2.3|*25.4  3.7    22.7  3.7 

29.9  4.0  22.0  3.6  20.4  1.3 

AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


549 


head  of  each  of  the  twelve  sciences.  All  the 
anthropologists  are  thus  included  in  the  table, 
but  only  two  fifths  of  the  astronomers,  one 
fifth  of  the  geologists,  etc.  In  cases  in  which 
an  individual  stands  relatively  higher  in  an- 
other science  a  star  is  attached. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  grades  are,  as 
a  rule,  lower  than  the  positions.  As  has  been 
stated,  the  distribution  of  the  judgments  or 
errors  in  the  upper  part  of  the  list  is  "skewed" 
in  a  negative  direction,  so  that  the  average 
judgment  is  lower  than  the  median  judgment. 
Further  down  the  list  this  tendency  disap- 
pears, and  towards  the  bottom,  not  given  in 
the  table  except  for  the  anatomists  and  an- 
thropologists, the  "  skew "  is  in  the  opposite 
direction.  Chauvenet's  criterion  has  been  ap- 
plied; it  causes  but  an  insignificant  difference 
in  the  order,  and  for  statistical  purposes  the 
extra  calculations  involved  were  superfluous. 
As  has  been  explained,  however,  the  incidence 
of  a  divergent  judgment,  which  might  be  due 
to  ignorance  or  prejudice,  might  be  unjust  to 
an  individual.  The  probable  errors  have  been 
obtained  by  taking  them  directly  proportional 
to  the  average  deviation  and  assuming  that 
there  were  always  ten  judgments.  In  the 
comparatively  few  cases  where  there  were  less 
than  ten  judgments  the  probable  errors  of  the 
average  are  too  small,  but  the  differences  are 
not  significant.  In  the  measurement  of  sci- 
entific merit,  we  are  concerned  not  with  the 
probable  error  of  the  average,  but  with  the 
average  probable  error,  which  does  not  depend 
on  the  number  of  cases.  Figures  for  both 
might  be  given,  but  they  are  so  nearly  alike 
and  so  lacking  in  significance  that  it  is  not 
worth  while. 

As  the  table  shows,  there  are  in  astronomy, 
pathology  and  psychology  men  who  are  placed 
distinctly  at  the  head.  In  the  other  sciences 
those  who  stand  first  have  grades  varying  from 
1.6  to  3.6.  In  most  cases  the  differences  in 
grade  are  less  than  the  probable  errors,  or  not 
much  larger,  and  the  position  is  not  deter- 
mined to  a  single  place,  though  it  is  deter- 
mined with  a  theoretically  high  degree  of 
validity  within  a  very  few  places.  Various 


groupings  occur,  which  seem  to  represent  the 
existing  conditions  of  the  sciences.  Thus 
there  are  breaks  of  two  or  more  units  after 
chemists  4  and  8;  physicist  2;  zoologists  4 
and  6 ;  geologists  2,  5  and  7 ;  botanist  8 ;  math- 
ematicians 3,  6  and  8;  pathologists  1,  4,  5 
and  9;  psychologist  1;  physiologists  7  and  9; 
anatomists  2  and  9,  and  anthropologist  5.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  are  cases  in  which  con- 
secutive numbers  are  bracketed  or  practically 
bracketed.  Thus  mathematicians  4,  5  and  6 
have  a  grade  of  5.7.  These  various  groupings 
appear  to  be  about  what  the  probable  errors 
would  lead  us  to  expect. 

The  probable  errors  tend  to  increase  as  we 
go  down  the  lists,  but  with  considerable  ir- 
regularity. This  irregularity  is  in  part  due 
to  normal  variability  where  the  number  of 
observations  is  small  and  the  average  devia- 
tions are  relatively  large,  but  the  larger  de- 
partures are  usually  significant,  it  being 
easier  to  assign  a  position  to  some  men  of 
science  than  to  others.  Thus,  for  example, 
it  is  not  easy  to  compare  a  man  who  has  made 
one  or  two  important  discoveries  with  a  man 
who  has  accomplished  a  large  mass  of  useful 
work. 

The  tendency  of  the  probable  errors  to  in- 
crease is,  however,  significant.  It  is  easier  to 
assign  the  order  at  the  top  of  the  list,  and  the 
difficulty  increases  as  we  go  downward.  This 
subjective  fact  is  measured  by  the  probable 
errors.  It  is  in  part  due  to  less  knowledge 
of  those  whose  work  is  less  important.  I 
know  of  no  way  to  eliminate  this  factor  or  to 
measure  its  influence.  But  the  main  factor 
is  the  real  differences  between  the  men,  and 
these  are  assumed  to  be  inversely  as  the  prob- 
able errors  and  directly  as  the  differences  in 
grade. 

In  Table  III.  are  given  all  the  probable 
errors  averaged  in  six  groups  for  each  of  the 
sciences.  In  the  first  and  second  groups  are 
included  one  tenth  of  those  in  each  science, 
and  in  the  remaining  groups  one  fifth.  That 
is,  the  probable  errors  are  divided  into  five 
equal  groups,  but  the  first  group  is  divided 
into  two  subgroups,  in  view  of  the  fact  that 


550 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


HI.      PBOBABLE   EEBOBS    IN  EACH   OF   THE   SCIENCES,   THE   MEN   OF   SCIENCE  BEING   DIVIDED   INTO 

IX   GBOTJP8 


Mathematics. 

8 

°3 
>, 

fi 

Chemistry. 

Astronomy. 

Geology. 

tA 

a 

5 
2 

t>, 

bo 

_o 
"o 

1 

Physiology. 

Anatomy. 

Pathology. 

Anthropology. 

Psychology. 

Average. 

W 

OH' 

CRUDE   PKOBABLE   ERRORS 


!  f 

1.8 

3.8 

2.5 

.4 

1.7 

1.6 

2.4 

.4 

.4 

.9 

.2 

.5 

L  i 

2.2 

4.0 

5.7 

.8 

3.5 

2.7 

4.1 

.9 

.9 

3.0 

.3 

.9 

ii. 

4.1 

8,5 

6.9 

1.3 

5.2 

4.8 

6.8 

2.0 

1.3 

3.7 

.9 

1.8 

in. 

4.5 

10.1 

13.4 

3.8 

6.7 

7.6 

9.8 

3.0 

2.1 

6.8 

1.6 

4.2 

IV. 

6.0 

9.4 

15.0 

3.6 

7.0 

8.7 

9.6 

2.9 

2.7 

5.9 

1.6 

5.8 

V. 

6.4 

8.5 

13.9 

3.2 

6.7 

8.3 

9.6 

2.9 

3.4 

6.0 

2.0 

6.2 

PROBABLE   ERRORS    CORRECTED   FOB   THE   BANGE 


:   ; 

1.3 

3.1 

2.0 

.4 

.9 

1.3 

1.9 

.3 

.2 

.5 

.2 

.4 

*•   i 

1.8 

2.8 

3.4 

.9 

3.6 

1.7 

3.3 

.7 

1.7 

2.8 

.3 

.9 

n. 

3.0 

6.2 

5.0 

.8 

7.0 

4.2 

5.3 

1.5 

.8 

3.3 

.6 

1.9 

in. 

7.1 

14.0 

16.4 

6.3 

6.4 

8.2 

11.3 

2.9 

3.6 

8.6 

.9 

1.8 

IV. 

7.3 

28.5 

22.7 

3.9 

8.3 

8.3 

15.3 

2.6 

2.6 

12.6 

3.2 

6.4 

V. 

6.2 

24.8 

25.3 

4.6 

7.3 

15.6 

17.0 

4.2 

3.8 

6.2 

2.1 

10.7 

THE  SAME  SEDUCED   TO   A   COMMON   STANDARD    FOB  THE   THOUSAND   MEN   OF   SCIENCE 


T  f 

16 

21 

11 

8 

9 

13 

13 

8 

8 

8 

10 

8 

11.1 

.8 

L  1 

22 

19 

19 

18 

36 

17 

22 

18 

68 

47 

15 

18 

26.6 

2.9 

II. 

37 

41 

29 

16 

70 

42 

35 

38 

32 

55 

30 

38 

38.6 

2.2 

III. 

89 

93 

94 

126 

64 

82 

75 

73 

144 

143 

45 

36 

88.7 

6.4 

IV. 

91 

190 

129 

78 

83 

83 

102 

65 

104 

210 

160 

128 

118.6 

9.1 

V. 

78 

165 

145 

92 

73 

156 

113 

105 

152 

103 

105 

214 

125.1 

8.4 

the  probable  errors  of  the  first  tenth  are  dis- 
tinctly smaller  than  those  of  the  second  tenth. 
In  the  middle  part  of  the  table  the  probable 
errors  have  been  adjusted  to  the  ranges  cov- 
ered by  each  group,  and  in  the  lower  part 
these  figures  have  been  reduced  to  a  common 
standard  of  a  thousand,  so  that  the  results 
for  the  different  sciences  may  be  comparable. 
If  the  range  of  ability  is  the  same  in  each 
science  and  if  the  difficulty  of  assigning  the 
order  in  each  science  is  the  same,  then  the 
figures  in  the  lower  third  of  the  table  should 
tend  to  be  the  same  in  the  different  sciences. 
As  the  averages  include  from  2  to  35  cases, 
they  are  subject  to  a  probable  error  which 
varies  considerably.  Thus,  to  take,  for  ex- 
ample, an  intermediate  case — the  botanists — 
the  probable  errors  of  the  six  entries  in  the 
upper  part  of  the  table  are:  0.25,  0.33,  0.18, 
0.28,  0.22,  0.25.  They  thus  seem  to  be  de- 


termined with  considerable  validity.  When 
the  probable  errors  are  adjusted  for  the  ranges, 
a  considerable  "  chance "  variation  is  intro- 
duced. If  the  figures  were  broken  up  into 
groups  of  different  sizes,  the  results  would  be 
different.  The  figures  in  the  last  three  groups 
of  each  of  the  sciences  seem  scarcely  to  be 
significant  of  real  differences  in  the  sciences, 
though  they  to  a  certain  extent  measure  the 
actually  existing  conditions. 

The  figures  in  the  table  give  the  validity 
with  which  the  positions  are  determined,  and 
at  the  same  time  measure  the  relative  differ- 
ences between  the  men  in  the  several  groups. 
Thus  the  first  tenth  of  the  chemists  have  on 
the  average  their  positions  determined  rela- 
tively to  other  chemists  with  a  probable  error 
of  two  places  and  the  last  fifth  with  a  probable 
error  of  25  places.  In  relation  to  the  first 
hundred  scientific  men,  a  chemist  in  this 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


551 


group  has  his  position  determined  on  the 
average  (apart  from  the  error  due  to  the  in- 
terpolation) with  a  probable  error  of  11  places, 
whereas  in  relation-  to  the  last  200  scientific 
men,  the  place  is  determined  with  a  probable 
error  of  145  places. 

The  figures  also  show  that  the  average  dif- 
ferences between  the  chemists  who  are  in  the 
first  tenth  are  about  eight  times  as  great  as 
between  the  chemists  towards  the  middle  of 
the  list  and  about  twelve  times  as  great  as 
between  the  chemists  towards  the  bottom  of 
the  list. 

As  has  been  stated,  there  are  considerable 
variations  in  the  figures  for  the  different  sci- 
ences. In  general,  however,  those  in  the  first 
hundred  differ  from  each  other  about  ten 
times  as  much  as  those  in  the  last  four  hun- 
dred, among  whom  there  are  no  constant  dif- 
ferences. It  is  scarcely  safe  to  draw  infer- 
ences from  the  variations  in  the  different 
groups  and  in  the  different  sciences.  If  the 
probable  errors  in  one  science  were  consist- 
ently higher  than  in  another,  it  would  mean 
that  in  the  former  science  it  is  more  difficult 
to  make  the  arrangement,  which  might  be  due 
to  greater  diversity  in  the  work  to  be  com- 
pared or  to  greater  similarity  in  the  men. 
The  greater  similarity  in  the  men  would  prob- 
ably be  due  to  there  having  been  relatively 
too  many  men  included  in  that  science.  But 


such  consistent  differences  do  not  appear. 
Thus  the  psychologists  have  the  largest  prob- 
able error  in  the  last  group,  but  the  smallest 
in  the  third  group,  and  the  mathematicians 
have  the  second  smallest  probable  error  in  the 
last  group,  but  the  second  largest  in  the  first 
group.  In  so  far  as  these  figures  are  signifi- 
cant, they  might  mean  that  our  able  psycholo- 
gists are  more  able  than  our  able  mathemati- 
cians, whereas  our  lesser  psychologists  are  less 
able  than  our  lesser  mathematicians.  It  is 
probably  true  that  our  leading  psychologists 
would  compare  more  favorably  with  those  of 
Germany,  France  and  Great  Britain  than  our 
leading  mathematicians,  but  inferences  as  to 
the  variation  in  the  distribution  of  ability  in 
the  different  sciences  can  not  be  made  from 
the  data  at  hand  with  any  considerable  degree 
of  validity.  It  would,  however,  be  of  interest 
to  have  comparable  data  for  different  nations 
and  for  different  periods. 

The  workers  in  the  twelve  sciences  have 
been  combined  into  one  series  by  interpola- 
tion, it  being  assumed  that  the  range  of  ability 
in  each  science  is  the  same.  The  probable 
errors  have  at  the  same  time  been  increased  to 
correspond  with  a  thousand  cases,  as  shown  in 
Table  III.  This  makes  the  probable  errors 
relatively  correct,  but  does  not  allow  for  the 
additional  chance  variations  caused  by  the 
interpolation.  The  list  is  of  considerable  in- 


TABLE   IV.      THE   OBDEB,    THE    SCIENCE,    THE    GBADE   AND   THE    PROBABLE   EBBOB   OF   EACH    OF   THE   FIBST 

FIFTY    MEN    OF    SCIENCE    ON    THE    LIST 


Order. 

Science. 

Grade, 

P.  E. 

Order. 

Science. 

Grade. 

P.  E. 

Order. 

Science. 

Grade. 

P.  E. 

I. 

Astron. 

T 

0 

XVIII. 

Chem. 

38.8 

6.9 

XXXV. 

Physiol. 

65.0 

7.0 

II. 

Path. 

? 

0 

XIX. 

Math. 

41.3 

37.1 

XXXVI. 

Psychol. 

65.0 

7.3 

III. 

Psychol. 

? 

0 

XX. 

Math. 

46.3 

8.7 

XXXVII. 

Path. 

65.0 

24.7 

IV. 

Physics. 

10.7 

4.8 

XXI. 

Zool. 

46.7 

6.0 

XXXVIII. 

Chem. 

65.1 

9.9 

V. 

Zool. 

18.0 

1.3 

XXII. 

Physiol. 

50.0 

7.7 

XXXIX. 

Bot. 

67.8 

10.6 

VI. 

Chem. 

20.5 

3.2 

XXIII. 

Bot. 

60.0 

15.9 

XL. 

Geol. 

70.0 

21.8 

VII. 

Zool. 

21.3 

6.9 

XXIV. 

Chem. 

50.2 

8.3 

XLI. 

Math. 

71.3 

5.9 

VIII. 

Physics. 

21.3 

18.2 

XXV. 

Geol. 

54.4 

16.2 

XLII. 

Math. 

71.3 

19.6 

IX. 

Geol. 

25.0 

4.7 

XXVI. 

Chem. 

55.4 

7.8 

XLIII. 

Bot. 

71.3 

39.2 

X. 

Chem. 

25.1 

2.4 

XXVII. 

Chem. 

56.0 

9.3 

XLIV. 

Bot. 

75.5 

6.2 

XI. 

Zool. 

28.7 

8.6 

XXVIII. 

Physics. 

58.0 

17.7 

XLV. 

Physics. 

76.7 

11.8 

XII. 

Bot. 

29.0 

8.1 

XXIX. 

Zool. 

59.3 

6.2 

XLVI. 

Physics. 

78.7 

14.2 

XIII. 

Zool. 

30.7 

5.9 

XXX. 

Physics. 

60.0 

5.2 

XLVII. 

Path. 

80.0 

10.7 

XIV. 

Math. 

31.3 

7.0 

XXXI. 

Psychol. 

60.0 

9.8 

XLVIII. 

Physics. 

80.0 

35.3 

XV. 

Chem. 

31.4 

9.8 

XXXII. 

Anat. 

60.0 

12.3 

XLIX. 

Bot. 

81.1 

27.2 

XVI. 

Bot. 

33.0 

5.3 

XXXIII. 

Physics. 

64.0 

53.4 

L. 

Physics. 

81.3 

11.2 

XVII. 

Geol. 

33.3 

4.7 

XXXIV. 

Path. 

65.0 

4.2 

552 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


terest,  as  it  enables  us  to  compare  with  more 
or  less  accuracy  men  of  science  working  in 
diverse  directions. 

The  order,  grades  and  probable  errors  of 
the  fifty  who  stand  first  are  given  to  illustrate 
the  method.  We  can  thus  say  that  the  work 
of  a  certain  physicist  is  equal  in  value  to  the 
work  of  a  certain  zoologist,  or  that  a  certain 
chemist  has  one  chance  in  four  of  being  as 
competent  as  a  certain  pathologist,  a  result 
that  would  not  be  possible  by  direct  compari- 
son. The  various  factors  which  limit  the  ex- 
actness of  the  method  should  be  kept  in  mind, 
but  we  have  at  least  the  beginning  of  a  method 
which  with  further  effort  can  be  made  more 
accurate.  Similar  methods  can  be  applied  to 
comparing  the  value  of  performance  in  fields 
even  more  diverse  than  the  several  sciences. 


-to 


104 


FIG.  2.     Distribution  of  the  thousand  men  of 
science. 

In  the  accompanying  curve — which  is  based 
on  substantially  the  same  figures  as  are  given 
in  Table  III.,  except  that  a  man  is  given  a 
position  only  in  the  science  in  which  he  stands 
the  highest — is  shown  the  distribution  of  the 
thousand  men  of  science.  The  1,000  scientific 
men  are  divided  into  ten  groups,  the  range  of 
eminence  or  merit  covered  by  each  hundred 
being  proportional  to  the  space  it  occupies  on 
the  axis  of  the  abscissas,  and  the  number  of 
each  degree  of  ability  being  proportional  to 
the  ordinates.  The  range  of  merit  covered 
by  each  hundred  becomes  smaller  and  there 
are  more  of  each  degree  of  merit  as  we  pass 


from  the  first  to  the  second  hundred  and  so 
on  for  the  first  five  hundred,  after  which  the 
differences  become  very  small.  The  first  hun- 
dred men  of  science  cover  a  range  of  merit 
about  equal  to  that  of  the  second  and  third 
hundreds  together,  and  this  again  is  very 
nearly  equal  to  the  range  covered  by  the  re- 
maining seven  hundred.  The  average  differ- 
ences between  the  men  in  the  first  hundred  are 
about  twice  as  great  as  between  the  men  in 
the  second  and  third  hundreds,  and  about 
seven  times  as  great  as  between  the  men  in  the 
remaining  groups.  Or  the  differences  among 
the  first  hundred  are  almost  exactly  ten  times 
as  great  as  among  the  last  five  hundred,  who 
differ  but  little  among  themselves.  It  would 
be  desirable  to  compare  this  distribution  with 
that  of  the  normal  probability  integral  and 
with  the  salaries  paid  to  scientific  men,  but 
the  data  are  not  as  yet  at  hand. 

THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  AMERICAN  MEN  OF  SCIENCE 

From  a  conventional  point  of  view  the  dis- 
tribution of  men  of  science  would  not  be 
regarded  as  a  psychological  problem,  perhaps 
not  even  as  a  scientific  problem.  But  in  re-  4 
cent  years  the  distribution  of  plants  and  ani- 
mals has  received  increasing  attention  in  bot- 
any and  zoology,  and  apart  from  its  perti- 
nence as  a  correct  description  of  the  world  in 
which  we  live,  it  has  proved,  on  the  one  hand, 
to  have  certain  practical  applications,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  throw  light  on  certain 
general  problems  of  heredity  and  evolution. 
Similar  results  may  accrue  from  a  scientific 
study  of  the  distribution  of  human  ability 
and  performance. 

The  birthplace  and  the  present  residence  of 
the  thousand  leading  men  of  science  of  the 
United  States  are  shown  on  the  table  on 
page  554,  the  divisions  used  being  those  of  the 
census.  Figures  are  given  separately  for  the 
five  hundred  (I.-V.)  who  are  more  distin- 
guished and  for  the  five  hundred  (VL-X.) 
whose  reputations  are  less,  followed  by  the 
totals  and  their  number  per  million  of  the 
^population.  As  the  average  age  of  the  scien- 
tific men  is  about  45  years,  their  birth  rate 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


553 


is  referred  to  the  census  of  I860."  Thus  the 
first  line  of  the  table  shows  that  29  of  the 
1,000  scientific  men  were  born  in  Maine,  and 
four  now  reside  there.  Of  the  29  scientific 
men  born  in  the  state,  19  are  among  the  500 
who  are  more  eminent  and  10  among  the  500 
who  are  less  eminent.  The  number  born  was 
at  the  rate  of  46.1  per  million  of  the  popula- 
tion at  the  approximate  time  of  their  birth, 
or  one  for  each  22,000.  The  scientific  popula- 
tion of  the  state  is  now  only  at  the  rate  of  5.7 
per  million  of  the  population,  or  scarcely  more 
than  one  for  each  200,000. 

There  are  striking  variations  in  the  origin 
and  in  the  present  residence  of  scientific  men 
throughout  the  United  States.  Massachusetts 
and  Boston  have  been  the  intellectual  center  of 
the  country.  The  birth  rate  of  these  leading 
men  of  science  is  in  Massachusetts  108.8  per 
million  population;  it  is  86.9  in  Connecticut, 
and  decreases  continually  at  greater  distances 
from  this  center.  It  is  reduced  to  about  one 
half  in  the  surrounding  states — 46.1  in  Maine, 
46  in  New  Hampshire,  57.1  in  Vermont  and 
47.2  in  New  York.  There  is  a  further  reduc- 
tion to  one  half  in  Pennsylvania — to  22.7 — and 
this  proceeds  as  we  go  southwards,  the  rate 
being  8.8  in  Virginia,  5  in  North  Carolina, 

2.8  in  Georgia,  2.1  in  Alabama,  1.3  in  Missis- 
sippi  and   1.4   in   Louisiana.     In   the   north 
central  states  the  conditions  are  intermediate 
between  New  York  and  Pennsylvania.     Thus 
the  birth  rate  per  million  is  32.1  in  Ohio  and 
36  in  Michigan.     Here  again  it  decreases  as 
we  go  southward.      The  rate  is  45.1  in  Wis- 
consin, 24.5  in  Illinois,  11.8  in  Missouri  and 

6.9  in  Kentucky.      Westward  the  total  num- 
ber of  scientific  men  is  too  small  and  the  pop- 
ulation has  been  too  rapidly  increasing  for 
the  figures  to  be  reliable.     Each  individual 
should  be  considered  in  connection  with  the 
population  at  the  time  of  his  birth,  but  even 

"This  is  not  exact,  as  the  age  distribution  is 
not  symmetrical,  and  the  rate  of  increase  of  the 
population  in  the  different  states  is  not  uniform, 
but  the  results  are  as  nearly  correct  as  is  neces- 
sary. 


*   in  this  case  the  validity  of  the  results  would 
be  small. 

Of  the  1,000  scientific  men,  126  were  born 
in  foreign  countries — 34  in  Canada,  38  in 
Great  Britain  and  19  in  Germany.  The 
birthplace  of  seven  is  not  known.  The  num- 
ber per  million  is  for  the  native  population 
13.2,  and  for  the  foreign-born  population  12. 
These  figures  have,  however,  no  significance, 
as  the  foreign-born  population  contains  a 
much  larger  proportion  of  adult  males.  The 
percentage  of  the  white  native  population  in 
the  United  States  over  40  years  of  age  is  18.4, 
and  of  white  foreign-born  is  44.4.  The  native 
population  consequently  produces  more  than 

«t  twice  as  many  scientific  men  as  the  foreign- 
born,  even  without  regard  to  the  excess  of 
males  among  the  foreign-born,  the  inclusion 
of  the  colored  races  among  the  native-born 
and  the  fact  that  many  of  the  foreign-born 
have  been  called  to  this  country  on  account  of 
their  scientific  standing.  The  different  na- 
*•  tions  contribute  scientific  men  in  very  unequal 
measure,  the  numbers  per  million  foreign- 
born  being  as  follows:  Switzerland,  68.9; 
Scotland,  37.9;  England,  29.6;  Canada,  28.7; 
Austria-Hungary,  10.4;  Russia,  7.4;  Germany, 
7.1;  Sweden,  5.2;  Italy,  2.1;  Ireland,  1.8; 
France,  0.  These  differences  can  not  be  at- 
tributed to  race,  as  they  do  not  represent  the 
scientific  productivity  of  these  nations,  but 
only  of  the  classes  that  have  emigrated  to  this 
country.  While  it  is  not  possible  to  deny 
that  the  variations  are  dependent  on  the  kinds 
of  family  stocks,  it  is  probable  that  they  are 
due  in  much  larger  measure  to  social  and  > 
economic  conditions.  The  native-born  sons  of 
Irish-born  parents  may  not  be  inferior  in 
scientific  productivity  to  other  classes  of  the 
community. 

The  inequality  in  the  production  of  scien- 
tific men  in  different  parts  of  the  country 
seems  to  be  a  forcible  argument  against  the 
view  of  Dr.  Galton  and  Professor  Pearson 
that  scientific  performance  is  almost  exclu- 
sively due  to  heredity.  It  is  unlikely  that 
there  are  such  differences  in  family  stocks  as 
would  lead  one  part  of  the  country  to  produce 


554 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


a  hundred  times  as  many  scientific  men  as 
other  parts.  The  negroes  may  have  a  racial 
disqualification,  but  even  this  is  not  proved. 
The  main  factors  in  producing  scientific  and 
other  forms  of  intellectual  performance  seem 
to  be  density  of  population,  wealth,  oppor- 
tunity, institutions  and  social  traditions  and 


ideals.  All  these  may  be  ultimately  due  to 
race,  but,  given  the  existing  race,  the  scien- 
tific productivity  of  the  nation  can  be  in- 
creased in  quantity,  though  not  in  quality, 
almost  to  the  extent  that  we  wish  to  increase  it. 
There  may  be  no  significant  difference  in 
the  distributions  of  the  first  and  second  groups 


TABLE  I.      DISTRIBUTION  OF   THE  THOUSAND   MEN   OF   SCIENCE 


Birthplace 

. 

Per 

Million 

Residence. 

Per 

I.-V. 

VI.-X. 

Total. 

1860. 

I.-V. 

VI.-X. 

Total. 

1900. 

North  Atlantic  Division. 
Maine  

19 

10 

29 

A6  1 

o 

4 

4 

5  7 

New  Hampshire  

7 

8 

15 

46  0 

2 

6 

8 

19  4 

Vermont  

9 

9 

18 

67.1 

o 

2 

2 

58 

Massachusetts  

60 

74 

134 

108  8 

74 

70 

144 

51  3 

Rhode  Island  

4 

1 

5 

28  6 

7 

1 

8 

18  7 

Connecticut  

26 

14 

40 

86  9 

27 

16 

43 

47  3 

New  York  

99 

84 

183 

JL7  2 

93 

99 

192 

26  4 

New  Jersey  

9 

19 

28 

41.6 

17 

18 

35 

18  5 

Pennsylvania  

32 

34 

66 

22.7 

28 

37 

65 

10  3 

South  Atlantic  Division. 
Delaware  

0 

2 

2 

17.8 

0 

1 

1 

5.4 

Maryland  

12 

14 

26 

87  8 

24 

23 

47 

89  5 

District  of  Columbia  

1 

2 

3 

39.9 

69 

50 

119 

426.9 

Virginia  

5 

8 

13 

8.8 

8 

2 

10 

5.4 

West  Virginia  

1 

0 

1 

2 

1 

3 

8.1 

North  Carolina  

1 

4 

5 

5.0 

3 

3 

6 

S  2 

South  Carolina  

2 

3 

5 

7  1 

Georgia  

1 

2 

3 

2.8 

0 

1 

1 

1  4 

South  Central  Civision. 
Kentucky  

6 

2 

8 

6.9 

1 

2 

3 

1.4 

Tennessee  

5 

1 

6 

5.4 

2 

1 

3 

1.5 

Alabama  

1 

1 

2 

2.1 

1 

1 

2 

1.1 

Mississippi  

1 

0 

1 

1.8 

Louisiana  

1 

0 

1 

1.4 

0 

1 

1 

.7 

Texas  

0 

3 

3 

4.9 

2 

5 

7 

2.8 

North  Central  Division. 
Ohio  

42 

33 

75 

82.1 

13 

21 

34 

8.2 

Indiana.  .  .    . 

17 

11 

28 

207 

4 

8 

12 

4  7 

Illinois  

24 

18 

42 

24.5 

36 

27 

63 

13.1 

Michigan  

12 

15 

27 

86.0 

22 

5 

27 

11.1 

Wisconsin  

11 

24 

35 

45.1 

11 

12 

23 

11.1 

Minnesota  

1 

3 

4 

ff)G>   ff) 

3 

10 

13 

7.4 

Iowa  .    . 

6 

14 

20 

29  6 

6 

2 

7 

S.I 

Missouri  

4 

10 

14 

11.8 

7 

14 

21 

6.7 

North  Dakota  

0 

2 

2 

6.2 

South  Dakota  

0 

2 

2 

3.9 

Nebraska  

1 

1 

2 

69  8 

4 

»         5 

9 

8.4 

Kansas  

5 

2 

7 

65  3 

2 

3 

5 

3.4 

Western  Division. 
Montana  

0 

2 

2 

8.2 

Wyoming  

0 

1 

1 

10.8 

Colorado  

0 

3 

3 

87.2 

3 

5 

8 

14.8 

New  Mexico  

0 

2 

2 

10.2 

Arizona  

1 

1 

2 

16.3 

Washington  

1 

0 

1 

86.2 

California  

5 

6 

11 

28.9 

23 

30 

53 

85.7 

Alaska  

o 

1 

1 

15.7 

Hawaii  

1 

0 

1 

Philippine  Islands  

2 

1 

3 

Total  

432 

435 

867 

27.6 

496 

498 

994 

18.3 

AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


555 


] 

Birthplace 

Per 

Million 

Residence. 

Per 

I.-V. 

VI.-X. 

Total. 

1860. 

I.-V. 

V.-IX. 

Total. 

1900 

Canada  

11 

23 

34 

28.7 

1 

1 

2 

Brazil  

1 

0 

1 

Cuba  

0 

1 

1 

England  

10 

15 

25 

29.6 

1 

0 

1 

Ireland  

2 

1 

3 

1.8 

Scotland  

6 

3 

9 

S7.9 

Wales  

0 

1 

1 

10.7 

i 

West  Indies  

0 

1 

1 

69.1 

Germany  

15 

4 

19 

7.1 

Austria-Hungary  

4 

2 

6 

10.4 

Norway  

1 

0 

1 

2.9 

Sweden  

2 

1 

3 

6.2 

Denmark  

0 

2 

2 

12.9 

Switzerland  

4 

4 

8 

68.9 

Russia  

4 

2 

6 

7.4 

Italy  

1 

1 

2.1 

Spain  

0 

1 

137.3 

Turkey  

1 

0 

1 

India  

4 

0 

4 

193.3 

China  

1 

1 

2 

18.7 

Total  

64 

62 

126 

4 

2 

6 

Grand  Total  

496 

497 

993 

500 

500 

1000 

of  500.  Some  states  have  produced  men  of 
higher  average  standing  than  others,  but  the 
differences  are  within  the  range  of  possible 
chance  variations.  Thus  Maine  has  produced 
19  men  of  the  first  rank  and  10  of  the  second. 
But  if  29  pennies  are  tossed  up,  there  is  one 
chance  in  14  or  15  (P  —  .068)  that  there  will 
be  19  or  more  heads.  It  is,  however,  true,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  that  Maine,  Connecticut, 
Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois  have  produced  men 
of  decidedly  higher  average  standing  than 
New  Jersey,  Wisconsin,  Iowa  and  Missouri. 
Those  born  in  Germany  are  considerably  above 
and  those  born  in  Canada  are  below  the  av- 
erage, and  the  figures  may  here  represent  a 
real  difference  in  the  classes  drawn  to  this 
country. 

The  fact  that  there  is  not  a  significant  dif- 
ference in  the  average  standing  of  scientific 
men  born  in  different  regions  of  the  country 
tends  to  support  the  conclusion  that  scientific 
performance  is  mainly  due  to  environment 
rather  than  to  innate  aptitude.  If  the  fact 
that  Massachusetts  has  produced  relatively  to 
its  population  four  times  as  many  scientific 
men  as  Pennsylvania  and  fifty  times  as  many 
as  the  southern  states  were  due  to  a  superior 
stock,  then  we  should  expect  that  the  average 


standing  of  its  scientific  men  would  be  higher 
than  elsewhere;  but  this  is  not  the  case.  Like 
most  arguments  intended  to  disentangle  the 
complex  factors  of  "  nature  and  nurture,"  this, 
however,  is  not  conclusive.  If  scientific  abil- 
ity were  innate,  each  tending  to  reach  his  level 
in  spite  of  environment,  then  a  potentially 
great  man  of  science  would  become  such 
wherever  born,  and  we  might  expect  a  favor- 
able environment  to  produce  mediocre  men, 
but  not  great  men.  But  this  argument  is 
answered  by  the  small  number  of  scientific 
men  from  certain  regions  of  the  country. 
Differences  in  stock  can  scarcely  be  great 
enough  to  account  for  this;  it  seems  to  be  due 
to  circumstance.  A  further  analysis  of  the 
curves  of  distribution  might  throw  light  on 
the  problem.  Thus  it  might  be  that  the  men 
of  greatest  genius  were  independent  of  the 
environment,  while  men  of  fair  average  per- 
formance were  produced  by  it.  Examples 
might  be  given  in  favor  of  this  view,  but  I 
can  not  see  that  it  is  supported  by  the  forms 
of  the  curves  of  distribution.  I  hope  at  some 
time  to  take  up  the  question  from  a  study  of 
individual  cases,  but  I  have  not  as  yet  the 
data  at  hand.  My  general  impression  is  that 
certain  aptitudes,  as  for  mathematics  and 


556 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


music,  are  mainly  innate,  and  that  kinds  of 
character  and  degrees  of  ability  are  mainly 
innate,  but  that  the  direction  of  performance 
is  mainly  due  to  circumstances,  and  that  the 
environment  imposes  a  veto  on  any  perform- 
ance not  congenial  to  it. 

The  present  distribution  of  the  1,000  men 
of  science  is  somewhat  the  same  as  their 
origin.  The  population  of  the  country  has 
more  than  doubled  since  1860,  and  the  num- 
ber of  these  scientific  men  per  million  popula- 
tion is  consequently  less  than  half  the  num- 
ber per  million  at  the  period  of  their  birth. 
There  are  in  Massachusetts  144  of  the  1,000, 
which  is  51.3  per  million  of  the  population, 
according  to  the  census  of  1900.  The  num- 
bers then  decrease  to  26.4  per  million  in  New 
York,  10.3  in  Pennsylvania,  13.1  in  Illinois, 
8.2  in  Ohio,  3.1  in  Iowa,  1.1  in  Alabama,  0.7 
in  Louisiana  and  0  in  Mississippi.  The  most 
striking  development  has  been  the  attraction 
to  Washington  of  a  large  group  of  scientific 
men,  119  of  the  thousand,  nearly  all  in  the 
service  of  the  government.  This  number  has 
been  almost  exactly  supplied  to  the  country  by 
the  excess  of  scientific  men  born  abroad — 120. 
This  leaves  an  equal  balance  between  the  gains 
and  losses  of  other  parts  of  the  country.  The 
greatest  gain  has  been  made  by  California, 
which  has  drawn  42  of  the  scientific  men  from 
other  states;  Illinois  and  Maryland  have -each 
gained  21.  Other  states  have  gained  consider- 
ably in  proportion  to  their  total  scientific  pop- 
ulation— New  Jersey  7,  Minnesota  9,  Mis- 
souri 7,  Nebraska  7  and  Colorado  5.  These 
gains  appear  to  be  significant,  attributable  to 
the  establishment  and  growth  of  universities. 

Massachusetts,  New  York  and  Pennsylvania 
have  remained  nearly  stationary.  Massachu- 
setts has  gained  ten  of  the  scientific  men  and 
New  York  nine,  while  Pennsylvania  has  lost 
one.  The  conditions  in  New  York  are  by  no 
means  creditable  to  that  state,  in  view  of  its 
great  increase  in  wealth.  Outside  New  York 
City,  the  state  has  lost  31  men  of  science, 
nearly  one  third  of  those  it  has  produced,  and 
half  the  others  are  concentrated  at  Ithaca. 
The  conditions  are  somewhat  similar  in  Mass- 


achusetts and  Pennsylvania,  outside  Boston, 
Cambridge  and  Philadelphia. 

The  rural  New  England  states,  Maine,  New 
Hampshire  and  Vermont,  have  lost  48  of  the 
62  scientific  men  whom  they  have  produced. 
This  is  a  loss  that  they  can  ill  afford ;  it  signi- 
fies a  distinct  decadence.  Had  each  of  these 
states  provided  an  income  of  $50,000  to  retain 
these  men  in  their  service,  they  would  have 
been  repaid  manyfold,  commercially  as  well  as 
intellectually.  The  conditions  in  some  of  the 
north  central  states  are  also  ominous,  though 
more  likely  to  improve.  Thus  Ohio  has  lost 
forty-one  of  its  scientific  men,  more  than  half 
of  those  whom  it  has  produced;  Indiana  has 
also  lost  more  than  half  and  Iowa  just  half. 
The  south  remains  in  its  lamentable  condition 
of  scientific  stagnation,  but  we  may  hope  that 
material  progress  will  be  followed  by  an  intel- 
lectual awakening.  All  these  figures  become 
more  impressive  when  we  remember  that  they 
indicate  performance  in  scholarship,  in  litera- 
ture and  in  art,  as  well  as  in  science.  It  would 
be  well  if  they  were  widely  known,  as  they 
would  tend  to  awaken  civic  pride  and  to  im- 
prove the  conditions  of  intellectual  activity. 

The  average  standing  of  the  scientific  men 
residing  in  different  parts  of  the  country 
varies  a  little  more  than  the  standing  of  those 
produced  in  different  regions  and  is  perhaps 
less  likely  to  be  due  to  chance  variations. 
This  appears  to  be  somewhat  paradoxical  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  theory  of  probabilities. 
The  fact  that  of  the  75  scientific  men  born  in 
Ohio,  42  belong  to  the  first  group  and  33  to 
the  second  is  a  natural  result  of  chance  dis- 
tribution, and  the  fact  that  of  the  34  scientific 
men  remaining  in  the  state,  13  belong  to  the 
first  group  and  21  to  the  second  might  equally 
well  be  the  result  of  chance  distribution.  But 
apparently  it  is  not.  Ohio  has  lost  more  than 
half  the  scientific  men  it  has  produced;  it  has 
lost  two  thirds  of  its  better  men  and  one  third 
of  its  more  mediocre  men.  The  state  has  not 
provided  for  its  scientific  men,  and  has  pro- 
vided less  adequately  for  the  better  men  than 
for  those  who  are  not  so  good.  Indiana  has 
lost  three  fourths  of  its  men  of  the  first  class 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


557 


and  one  fourth  of  those  of  the  second  class. 
The  three  rural  New  England  states  have  lost 
seventeen  eighteenths  of  their  men  of  the  first 
class  and  one  half  of  those  of  the  second  class. 
These  conditions  are  significant  and  serious. 
•  Other  states  have  improved  their  positions. 
Thus,  thanks  to  its  great  university,  Michigan 
has  22  men  in  the  first  group  as  compared  with 
five  in  the  second.  Thanks  again  to  its  uni- 
versities, Illinois  has  increased  its  number  of 
scientific  men  from  42  to  63,  of  whom  36  are 
in  the  first  class.  California,  Missouri  and 
Minnesota  have,  on  the  other  hand,  called  men 
who  are  below  the  average. 

The  large  centers  of  scientific  population  in 
Massachusetts  and  New  York  have  about 
maintained  their  positions,  having  produced 
men  of  about  average  standing  and  their  resi- 
dent men  of  science  being  of  about  average 
standing.  Massachusetts  has,  however,  gained 
%  little  and  New  York  has  lost  a  little.  Of 
the  119  scientific  men  in  Washington,  69  are 
in  the  first  group  and  50  in  the  second.  This 
appears  to  me  to  be  a  fact  of  very  great  impor- 
tance. It  is  commonly  said  that  less  able  sci- 
entific men  are  attracted  to  the  government 
service,  that  those  who  are  able  leave  it  for 
university  positions  and  that  those  who  stay 
are  not  encouraged  to  do  their  best  work. 
Such  statements  are  refuted  by  these  statis- 
tics. The  average  performance  of  the  scien- 
tific men  at  Washington  is  higher  than  in 
Massachusetts  or  in  New  York.  This  con- 
clusion is  most  gratifying  to  those  of  us  who 
believe  that  the  future  of  scientific  research 
depends  largely  on  its  support  by  the  nation, 
the  states  and  the  municipalities. 

The  writer  has  on  various  occasions  called 
attention  to  the  economic  conditions  which 
limit  scientific  research.  As  one  of  the  ob- 
"  jects  of  the  present  work  is  to  improve  these 
conditions,  it  may  be  well  to  repeat  here  the 
argument.  Our  economic  system  rests  on  the 
free  exchange  of  services.  A  state  of  society 
may  some  day  be  reached  in  which  each  will 
aim  to  give  as  much  as  he  can  and  to  take  as 
little,  but  at  present  it  appeals  to  our  sense  of 
fairness  that  each  should  ask  for  his  services 


what  someone  else  is  willing  to  pay.  In  the 
increasing  complexity  of  our  society  this 
method  is  working  two  serious  injustices. 
One  of  these  is  the  formation  of  monopolies. 
Thanks  chiefly  to  the  applications  of  science, 
many  services  can  now  be  supplied  at  a  cost 
less  than  people  would  be  willing  to  pay. 
When  free  competition  is  excluded,  either  by 
the  conditions  of  the  case  or  by  ingenious 
combination,  people  may  be  made  to  pay  more 
than  a  fair  return  for  certain  services.  The 
problems  of  monopoly  are  being  discussed  on 
all  sides,  and  remedies  are  being  sought  in  all 
directions;  but  the  injustice  which  in  a  way 
*is  the  converse  of  monopoly  has  scarcely  been 
noticed.  This  is  the  case  in  which  an  indi- 
vidual gives  services  without  an  adequate  re- 
turn, owing  to  the  fact  that  they  are  not  ren- 
dered to  a  single  individual  or  group  who  will 
pay  for  them,  but  to  society  as  a  whole.  A 
surgeon  may  ask  for  an  operation  for  appendi- 
citis as  large  a  fee  as  his^atient  is  willing  to 
pay,  but  should  he  after  years  of  research  dis- 
cover a  method  of  preventing  appendicitis 
altogether,  he  would  receive  no  payment  at  all, 
but  would,  on  the  contrary,  give  up  all  future 
fees  for  the  operation.  The  surgeons  who 
by  risking  and  sacrificing  their  lives  discov- 
ered how  to  suppress  yellow  fever  have  re- 
ceived no  return  for  their  great  work. 

The  two  most  important  services  for  society 
— the  bearing  and  rearing  of  children  and 
creation  in  science  and  art — are  exactly  those 
for  which  society  gives  no  economic  returns, 
leaving  them  dependent  on  instincts  which  are 
in  danger  of  atrophy.  This  state  of  affairs 
not  only  does  injustice  to  the  unrewarded  in- 
dividual, but  works  immeasurable  harm  to 
society — a  greater  injury  probably  than  all 
existing  monopolies.  There  are  more  than  a 
hundred  thousand  physicians  in  the  United 
States  who  are  practising  on  their  patients 
for  fees,  while  there  are  scarcely  two  hundred 
who  are  studying  seriously  the  causes  of  dis- 
ease and  the  methods  of  preventing  it.  The 
conditions  are  similar  in  law  and  in  all  pro- 
fessions and  trades.  The  scientific  investi- 
gator is  usually  an  amateur.  He  has  wealth 


568 


AMERICAN  MEN   OF   SCIENCE 


or  earns  his  living  by  some  profession,  and 
incidentally  does  what  he  can  to  advance  sci- 
ence for  love  of  the  work.  This  has  its  good 
side  in  producing  a  small  group  of  men  who 
are  not  subject  to  purely  commercial  stand- 
ards. But  this  is  after  all  a  minor  factor, 
and  the  scientific  man  is  likely  to  look  for 
fame,  which  is  scarcely  more  ideal  tTmn  money 
and  can  be  supplied  to  but  few.  Satisfaction 
in  the  work  itself  is  the  best  reward  for  work; 
but  no  one  can  know  that  his  work  is  of  value 
except  by  the  reflected  appreciation  of  others, 
and  in  the  existing  social  order  the  simplest 
and  probably  the  most  adequate  expression 
of  this  appreciation  is  direct  payment  for  the 
service  rendered. 

The  methods  that  society  has  devised  to 
meet  this  situation,  apart  from  the  conferring 
of  honors  and  fame,  are  recent  and  inadequate. 
Copyrights  and  patents  are  the  most  direct 
acknowledgment  of  property  in  ideas.  They 
have  accomplished  a  good  deal,  and  their  scope 
should  be  extended.  At  present  only  a  small 
part  of  discovery  is  covered  by  the  patent 
office,  and  this  perhaps  not  the  part  requiring 
the  greatest  genius.  It  is,  however,  leading, 
especially  in  Germany,  to  the  development  of 
discovery  on  a  sound  commercial  basis.  It  is 
said  that  one  chemical  firm  employs  three 
hundred  doctors  of  philosophy  to  carry  on  sci- 
entific investigations.  Research  has  hitherto 
been  forwarded  mainly  by  the  universities, 
where  again  Germany  has  led  the  way.  The 
professorship  is  given  as  a  reward  for  success- 
ful investigations,  and  the  holder  of  a  chair 
is  expected  to  devote  himself  to  investigation 
as  well  as  to  teaching.  There  is  a  tendency 
to  permit  certain  professors  to  engage  almost 
exclusively  in  research.  Thus  the  astronom- 
ical observatories  of  Harvard,  Chicago  and 
California  universities  are  purely  research  in- 
stitutions. A  further  step  has  been  taken  in 
the  endowment  of  institutions,  such  as  the 
Carnegie  Institution  and  the  Rockefeller  In- 
stitute, explicitly  for  research.  The  moat  log- 
ical and  important  advance,  however,  consists 
in  the  direct  conduct  of  research  by  the  gov- 
ernment. As  the  government  should  control 
monopolies,  so  it  should  conduct  the  work 
which  is  not  for  the  benefit  of  a  single  indi- 


TABIX   n.      DISTRIBUTION   IK   DtTTEKOT   PLACES 


\-.'.r,t'\: 

ngtoBi 

r.  ;-.,-•  I*.-* 

Per 

M-    ion 

VI.-X 

TotaL 

ISM. 

New  York,  N.  Y  
Boston,  Mass.  

33 
24 

25 
19 

58 
43 

71JS 

Philadelphia.  Pa-  
Baltimore,  Md.  . 

12 
9 

16 

11 

28 
20 

494 

94J. 

Cincinnati  O 

6 

0 

12 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  

3 

I 

11 

39^ 

Chicago  IDs 

f 

3 

8 

Buffalo,  N.  Y..  . 

3 

4 

7 

86JS 

St.  Louis,  Mo.  . 

2 

0 

7 

Cambridge,  Maas  
Cleveland,  O  .  . 

4 

4 

2 
2 

6 
6 

£-10.2   , 
I.'/-  5 

Salem  Maw 

1 

5 

6 

969  <7  * 

Milwaukee.  Wia 

1 

4 

5 

j,f,  j 

Newark,  N.  J.  . 

3 

2 

5 

69J 

San  Francisco,  Cal  

2 

3 

5 

Total  

112 

115 

227 

A.  ^  '",'",  r-i  . 

:.?  v,  I:* 

•>.:  !';:.'« 

Per 

I.-V. 

VL-X. 

TotaL 

IMff. 

Washington,  D.  C  
New  York,  N.  Y.  \ 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y.    j    .. 
Cambridge,  Mass  . 

69 
61 

1 
30 

50 
54 
3 
22 

119 

115 

4 
52 

oS.f* 
676£ 

Chicago,  IDs.  . 

29 

16 

45 

Baltimore,  Md  

22 

16 

38 

74.3 

New  Haven,  Conn.  .  .  . 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

24 
14 

10 
20 

34 
34 

314-7 
CttJ 

Boston,  Mass.  . 

14 

19 

33 

ffftj 

17 

u 

32 

-?.:.?>"../ 

Ann  Arbor.  Mich  .... 
Madison,  Wis  .  . 

20 

7 

11 

25 
18 

Berkeley,  Cal.. 

8 

0 

17 

/fa&f 

Palo  Alto.  Cal  . 

9 

7 

16 

080DU 

Princeton,  * 

8 

0 

14 

Minneapolis,  Minn.  .  . 
St.  Louis,  Mo  

3 

0 

S 

11 
11 

54  3 
19.1 

7 

4 

11 

(•',.•  ,.'^r  ,>   f, 

f, 

4 

10 

MJ 

Columbus,  O  .  .  . 

3 

7 

10 

79JS 

San  Francisco,  Cal  .  .  . 
Columbia,  Mo  .  . 

1 
1 

0 

S 

10 
9 

£9.1 
169*4 

Lincoln,  N'-Sr           .  .  . 

4 

0 

9 

0 

0 

9 

83J) 

Cincinnati,  O.  . 

2 

6 

8 

Bryn  Mawr,  Pa  . 

2 

5 

7 

1 

Evanston,  IDs.  . 

5 

2 

7 

3634 

Middletown,  Conn  . 
Bloomington,  Ind  .  . 
Brookline,  Mass 
Chariottesville,  Va  . 
Iowa  City,  la  

2 
3 
4 
0 

4 

5 
3 
2 

1 
2 

7 
6 
6 
6 
6 

-yj.o 

900* 
9903 

751Jt 

Mt.  Hamilton.  Cal  . 
Northampton,  Mass 
Providence,  R   I 

4 
2 
5 

2 

4 
1 

6 
6 
6 

T 
3S1J 

Albany,  N. 

I 

2 

5 

63.1 

Amherst,  Maas.  

3 

2 

5 

9944 

Chapel  Hill.  N.  C  
Lawrence,  Kan*.  
New  Brunswick.  N.  J. 

3 
2 
2 

2 
3 
3 

5 

5 

5 

To'-U.  . 

415 

367 

782 

AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


559 


vidual,  but  for  the  people  as  a  whole.  There 
are,  of  course,  no  end  of  difficulties  in  the 
control  of  monopolies  or  the  conduct  of  re- 
search by  a  municipality,  state  or  nation;  but 
it  is  exactly  these  difficulties  that  it  is  our 
business  to  overcome.  We  may  congratulate 
ourselves  that  our  national  government  is  at 
present  accomplishing  more  for  research  and 
the  applications  of  science  than  the  govern- 
ment of  any  other  nation,  and  that  the  men 
of  science  working  under  the  government  are 
doing  their  full  share  for  the  advancement  of 
science. 

Table  II.  gives  the  cities  in  which  five  or 
more  of  the  thousand  scientific  men  were  born, 
and  the  cities  in  which  five  or  more  of  them 
now  reside.  The  tendency  towards  concentra- 
tion which  we  know  to  exist  is  here  measured. 
Two  hundred  and  twenty-seven  of  the  scien- 
tific men  were  born  in  places  producing  five 
or  more,  and  782  of  them  live  in  places  where 


there  are  five  or  more.  This  is,  of  course, 
natural,  and  probably  desirable;  scientific 
work  is  accomplished  where  men  gather  to- 
gether. Still  the  fact  that  three  fourths  of 
our  scientific  men  live  in  39  places — with  a 
good  many  more  in  the  suburbs — leaves  rather 
a  scanty  number  for  the  rest  of  the  country. 
We  have,  however,  more  separate  scientific 
centers  than  foreign  countries,  and  by  this 
circumstance  we  both  gain  and  lose.  The 
lack  of  men  of  distinction  in  whole  regions 
and  large  cities  is  a  serious  indictment  of 
our  civilization.  The  existence  of  cities  such 
as  Brooklyn  and  Buffalo  is  an  intellectual 
scandal. 

Of  the  866  men  native  to  the  United  States, 
224  were  born  in  the  cities  which  in  1900  had 
a  population  of  more  than  25,000.  These 
places  had  in  1860  a  population  of  about 
4,500,000  as  compared  with  a  rural  population 
of  about  27,000,000.  The  urban  population 


TABLE    III.      DISTRIBUTION    ACCORDING   TO    PRESENT   POSITION   OF  THE  THOUSAND  MEN   OF   SCIENCE 


I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

Total. 

Harvard  

19 

8.5 

3 

6.5 

3.5 

6 

4.5 

5.5 

3.5 

65 

66.5 

Columbia  

7 

6 

6.5 

4.5 

5 

4.5 

5.5 

6 

4 

11 

60 

Chicago  

7 

10 

3 

6 

2 

2.5 

3 

2 

1.5 

2 

39 

Cornell  

3 

6 

3 

2 

3 

1.5 

3 

3.5 

4 

4.5 

33.5 

U.  S.  Geological  Survey  

6 

a 

4 

4 

4 

1 

3 

3 

2 

2 

32 

U.  S.  Department  Agriculture 
Johns  Hopkins  

3 
9 

4 
2 

2 
5.5 

4 
0 

3 
1.5 

2 
2 

3 
4.5 

3 

0.5 

3 
1 

5 

4.5 

32 
30.5 

California  

1 

2 

2 

4 

3 

4 

1 

5 

1 

4 

27 

Yale  

2 

5.5 

3 

3.5 

5.5 

2 

1 

0 

2 

2 

26.5 

Smithsonian  Institution  

3 

2 

4 

4 

2 

0 

1 

3 

1 

•    2 

22 

Michigan  

1 

3 

6 

3 

3 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

20 

Mass.  Inst.  Tech  

1 

2 

2.5 

4 

2 

3 

2 

0 

0 

3 

19.5 

Wisconsin  

1 

3 

1 

2 

0 

3 

2 

4 

2 

0 

18 

Pennsylvania  

2 

1 

1 

3.5 

2.5 

1.5 

1 

2 

05 

2 

17 

Leland  Stanford,  Jr  

3 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

16 

Total. 


Princeton 

Minnesota,  Ohio  State 

New  York  University 

Missouri,  Nebraska,  Northwestern 

National  Bureau  of  Standards,  U.  S.  Navy,  Am.  Mus.  Nat.  History 

Carnegie  Institution,  Clark,  Iowa,  Syracuse,  Virginia,  Wesleyan 

Bryn  Mawr,  Cincinnati,  Dartmouth,  Illinois,  Indiana,  N.  Y.  Botanical  Garden,  Smith 

Brown,  Kansas,  North  Carolina,  Texas,  Washington  (St.  Louis) 

Field  Columbian  Museum,  General  Electric  Co.,  St.  Louis,  Western  Reserve,  Pennsylvania  State,  Rutgers 

Lehigh 

Philadelphia  Acad.  Nat.  Sciences,  Amherst,  Case,  College  of  City  of  New  York,  Colorado  College, 

Colorado   University,   Haverford,   Purdue,   Rockefeller   Institute,   Simmons,   Tufts,   Vassar, 

Worcester.  . 


Grand  Total . 


459.5 
14.5 

J9 
9\5 

9 
8 
7 
6 
5 
4 
3.5 


730 


560 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


was  about  one  sixth  of  the  rural  population 
and  produced  more  than  a  quarter  of  the  sci- 
entific men.  The  urban  birth  rate  was  50 
and  the  rural  birth  rate  was  23.8.  The  su- 
perior position  of  the  towns  is  doubtless  due 
to  a  more  favorable  environment,  but  it  may 
also  be  in  part  due  to  the  fact  that  the  parents 
of  these  scientific  men  were  the  abler  clergy- 
men and  others  of  their  generation  who  were 
&.  drawn  to  the  cities. 

Table  III.  gives  the  institutions  with  which 
three  or  more  of  the  scientific  men  are  con- 
nected, and  in  the  case  of  institutions  in  which 
there  are  more  than  fifteen  the  details  of  their 
rank  are  shown,  I.,  II.,  etc.,  representing  the 
first  hundred,  the  second  hundred,  etc.  I  give 
this  table  with  some  hesitation,  but  it  appears 
that  in  the  end  it  will  be  for  the  advantage 
of  scientific  research  if  it  is  known  which 
institutions  obtain  and  retain  the  best  men. 
Harvard  has  66.5  of  the  scientific  men,  the  half 
(0.5)  being  used  when  a  professor  is  emeritus 
or  gives  only  part  of  his  time  to  an  institu- 
tion. Columbia  follows  with  60,  and  Chicago 
comes  next  with  39.  In  both  the  U.  S.  Geo- 
logical Survey  and  the  Department  of  Agri- 
culture there  are  32.  About  half  of  the  sci- 
entific men  are  connected  with  18  institutions. 
Harvard  has  not  only  the  largest  number  of 
scientific  men,  but  they  are  also  of  the  highest 
rank,  19  being  in  the  first  hundred  and  8.5  in 
the  second  hundred.  Johns  Hopkins  has  nine 
in  the  first  hundred  and  Columbia  and  Chi- 
cago each  has  seven.  A  table  such  as  this 
might  have  some  practical  influence  if  the 
data  were  made  public  at  intervals  of  ten 
years. 

Table  TV.  gives  the  institutions  at  which 
the  1,000  men  of  science  pursued  their  studies. 
A  man  is  credited  for  his  degree  to  the  first 
institution  at  which  he  took  it,  but  in  the  case 
of  graduate  study,  he  may  have  attended  sev- 
eral institutions.  He  is  not,  however,  credited 
as  a  graduate  student  to  the  institutions  from 
which  he  received  the  doctorate."  The  total 

"The  doctorates  include  the  comparatively  few 
cases  in  which  the  degree  of  doctor  of  science  has 
been  conferred  in  course. 


influence  of  Harvard  is  237,  of  the  Johns 
Hopkins  171,  of  Yale  93,  of  Columbia  78  and 
of  Cornell  74.  About  one  tenth  of  the  men 
of  science  received  their  bachelor's  degree  from 
Harvard  and  about  the  same  number  their 
doctor's  degree  from  the  Johns  Hopkins.  It 
is  not  certain  that  a  preponderance  of  scien- 
tific men  has  been  produced  at  any  institution 
as  compared  with  the  total  number  of  stu- 
dents, and  it  appears  that  those  who  attend 
the  larger  universities  are  not  of  higher  av- 
erage performance  than  others.  Thus  of  the 
106  who  have  taken  the  bachelor's  degree  at 
Harvard,  55  are  in  the  first  rank  and  51  in 
the  second.  Yale,  Cornell  and  Michigan  have 
produced  men  above  the  average  rank,  and  the 
excess  is  such  that  it  is  probably  significant, 
though  the  departures  fall  within  the  limits 
of  possible  chance  variation.  On  the  whole, 
however,  there  is  no  significant  difference  in 
rank  between  the  515  men  who  attended  the 
larger  institutions  and  those  who  attended 
smaller  colleges  or  none.  It  might  be  sup- 
posed that  abler  students  would  be  attracted 
to  a  university  such  as  Harvard,  and  that 
they  would  have  greater  opportunities  there, 
but  this  appears  not  to  be  the  case.  So  far 
as  it  goes,  this  favors  the  theory  that  men  of 
science  are  born  such  and  are  not  dependent 
on  the  environment  for  the  quality  of  their 
performance.  It  may,  however,  be  that  rela- 
tively more  men  of  mediocre  ability  are  led  to 
take  up  scientific  work  at  an  institution  such 
as  Harvard,  whereas  only  those  of  genius  are 
likely  to  break  through  the  barrier  of  an  un- 
favorable environment. 

The  conditions  are  similar  in  the  case  of 
the  doctor's  degree.  Of  the  487  men  who 
have  received  it  from  the  larger  institutions, 
244  are  of  the  first  rank  and  243  of  the  second ; 
nor  do  any  institutions  excel,  unless  it  be 
Leipzig  and  Gb'ttingen.  Those  who  pursue 
graduate  studies  at  institutions  from  which 
they  do  not  take  the  degree  are  of  distinctly 
higher  standing  than  the  average  A.B.  or 
Ph.D.  This  is  probably  because  the  abler  and 
more  energetic  men  have  attended  several  in- 
stitutions, more  especially  abroad,  many  of 


AMERICAN  MEN   OF   SCIENCE 


561 


them  having  worked  in  foreign  universities 
even  after  having  obtained  scientific  distinc- 
tion. 

The  thousand  men  of  science  under  consid- 
eration pursued  their  graduate  studies  on  the 
average  from  fifteen  to  twenty  years  ago. 
Since  that  time  a  considerable  change  has  oc- 
curred in  the  relative  numbers  of  students 


attracted  to  different  institutions.  Owing  to 
the  improvement  of  our  universities  relatively 
fewer  students  now  frequent  foreign  institu- 
tions. The  number  of  doctorates  conferred 
in  the  natural  and  exact  sciences  during  the 
past  nine  years  is  as  follows:  Johns  Hopkins, 
147;  Chicago,  145;  Columbia,  137;  Harvard, 
129;  Yale,  120;  Cornell,  94;  Pennsylvania,  85; 


TABLE  IV.      ATTENDANCE  OF  THE  THOUSAND    MEN  OF  SCIENCE  AT  DIFFEBENT  INSTITUTIONS 


Bachelor's  Degree. 

Graduate  Study. 

Ph.D. 

Grand 
Total. 

I.-V. 

VI.-X. 

Total. 

I.-V. 

V.-IX. 

Total. 

L-V. 

VI.-X. 

Total. 

Harvard  

55 
12 
35 
12 
19 
23 

11 
0 
13 
12 
0 
5 

4 
5 
9 
4 
6 
6 

5 
6 
7 
3 
4 
2 

5 
2 
2 

51 
15 
17 
16 
12 
12 

12 
2 
13 
11 
0 
10 

10 
7 
7 
4 
5 
8 

5 
4 
4 
2 
4 
4 

13 
1 
0 

106 
27 
62 
28 
SI 
S5 

23 
2 
26 
23 
0 
16 

14 
12 
16 
8 
10 
14 

10 
10 
11 
5 
8 
6 

18 
S 

2 

38 
27 
9 
9 
4 
4 

5 
3 
3 
2 
5 
2 

1 
3 
2 
2 
4 
0 

2 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 

3 
0 
3 

53 
30 
18 
27 
13 
13 

10 
10 
5 
9 

4 

21 

36 
15 
4 
3 
13 
4 

7 
11 
6 
3 
11 
2 

4 
3 
3 
4 
2 
2 

1 
2 
1 
0 
2 
2 

3 
3 
5 

42 
15 
18 
14 
5 
4 

5 
4 
6 
3 
3 

7 

74 

42 
IS 
12 
17 
8 

12 
14 
9 
5 
16 
4 

5 
6 
5 
6 
6 
2 

S 
4 
2 
2 
S 
S 

6 
S 
8 

95 
45 
86 
41 
18 
17 

16 
14 
11 
12 
7 

28 

30 
50 
14 
11 
10 
8 

4 
12 
0 
0 
4 
3 

2 
3 
0 
4 
1 
0 

0 
0 
0 
3 
0 
1 

0 
2 
0 

11 
27 
19 
7 
6 
3 

3 
2 
1 
0 
3 

0 

27 
52 
14 
27 
16 
2 

4 
11 
0 
1 

8 
6 

2 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 

1 
0 
0 
3 
0 
0 

0 
3 
0 

11 
12 
14 
8 
7 
3 

1 

2 
2 
0 
2 

1 

57 
102 
28 
38 
26 
10 

8 
23 
0 
1 
12 
9 

4 
4 
0 
4 
2 
1 

1 
0 
0 
6 
0 
1 

0 
6 
0 

22 
39 
S3 
15 
13 
6 

4 
4 
S 
0 
5 

1 

237 
171 
93 
78 
74 
53 

43 
39 
35 
29 
28 
28 

23 
22 
21 
18 
18 
17 

14 
14 
13 
13 
11 
10 

24 
11 
10 

117 
84 
69 
56 
31 
23 

19 
18 
14 
12 
12 

29 

Johns  Hopkins  
Yale  

Columbia  

Cornell  

Michigan  

Princeton  

Chicago  

Mass.  Inst.  Tech  .  .  . 
Amherst  

Clark  

Pennsylvania  

Wisconsin  

California  

Wesleyan  

Indiana  

Nebraska  

Williams  

Dartmouth  

Oberlin  

College  City  N.  Y.  .  . 
Geo.  Washington.  .  . 
Brown.  .  .  . 

Iowa  

Toronto  

Edinburgh  

Cambridge  

Berlin  

Leipzig  

Gottingen  

Heidelberg  

Munich  

Strasburg  

Freiburg  

Bonn  

Zurich  

Vienna  

Wvirzburg  

Paris  

Total  

266 

249 

515 

351 

278 

629 

244 

243 

487 

1631 

37 


562 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


Clark,  75.  There  is  then  a  drop  to  universi- 
ties that  have  conferred  fewer  than  25  de- 
grees in  the  sciences  during  this  period. 
Relatively  more  work  is  done  in  the  sciences 
in  some  institutions  than  in  others.  Thus  the 
percentage  of  degrees  in  the  sciences  in  these 
universities  is  as  follows:  Clark,  95;  Cornell, 
58;  Johns  Hopkins,  54;  Columbia,  49;  Chi- 
cago, 48;  Pennsylvania,  43;  Harvard,  42,  and 
Yale,  41. 

Table  V.  shows  the  institutional  origin  of 
men  who  have  pursued  different  sciences.  The 
Johns  Hopkins  University  has  excelled  rela- 
tively in  chemistry,  physics,  zoology  and 
physiology;  Harvard  in  zoology  and  botany; 
Columbia  in  zoology,  botany  and  mathematics ; 
Cornell  in  physics  and  botany;  Clark  in  psy- 
chology, and  Michigan  in  botany  and  pathol- 


ogy. Of  the  foreign  universities,  Berlin  has 
excelled  in  physics,  Leipzig  in  psychology  and 
Gottingen  in  chemistry  and  mathematics. 

The  table  also  shows  that  men  are  more 
likely  to  pursue  graduate  studies  and  to  take 
the  doctor's  degree  in  some  sciences  than  in 
others.  Of  the  fifty  psychologists,  35  have 
received  the  doctor's  degree  from  the  institu- 
tions given  in  the  table,  and  of  the  150  zoolo- 
gists 90  have  received  it,  whereas  only  two  of 
the  25  anatomists  and  only  five  of  the  60 
pathologists  have  received  a  non-technical 
higher  degree  from  these  universities.  While 
important  improvements  in  the  practise  of 
surgery  and  medicine  have  been  made  in  this 
country,  it  must  be  admitted  that  we  are  not 
doing  our  share  for  the  advancement  of  pathol- 
ogy, anatomy  and  physiology. 


TABLE  v. 


SUBJECTS    OF   THE    THOUSAND    MEN    OF    SCIENCE    WHO    HAVE    PUBSUED    GRADUATE    STUDIES 
OB  TAKEN   THE   DOCTOB'S   DEGBEE   AT  DIFFERENT  INSTITUTIONS 


Graduate  Study. 

Ph.D. 

Grand  Total. 

£ 
I 

6 

E 

be 

_0 

o 

0 

N 

0 
0 
0) 

0 

D 

2 

O 

ca 
la 

a 

o 

"c 

J3 

C3 
PH 

to 

0 

"o 
•5 

8 
o 

a 

2 

1 

o 

PH 

c 

i 

c 
a 

i 

o 
H 

C 

i 

0) 

a 

0 

0 
'a 

fi 

0 

3 

"3 
0 

g 

1 

CS 

S 
» 

tc 

"3 
J3 

I 

bo 

0 

c 

"3 

«" 

£ 

K 

I 
c 
o 
hi 

to 

_0 

o 

a 

a 

_0 

"S 

c 

to 

o 
"3 

— 

£ 

3 
c 

3' 

S 

Johns  Hopkins  

3 
10 
3 
1 
3 
2 
1 

1 

18 
10 

10 
18 
10 
4 
3 
2 
6 
1 
2 
5 
113 

8 
8 
4 
4 
2 
4 
2 
1 
4 

1 

2 

24 
2 
5 

2 

1 
1 

3 

1 

4 

5 

13 

3 

2 
1 
6 
6 
2 
1 
1 
1 

5 
7 
1 
2 
2 
4 
5 

1 

3 
3 

4 
8 
2 
2 

4 

3 
3 

3 
8 
2 

1 
3 

3 
12 

3 
3 

1 

5 

2 

2 

7 

5 

10 

.  1 

2 

1 

5 

1 
1 

5 
4 
9 
3 

1 
1 
4 

7 
1 

1 

2 

10 
2 
3 

2 
1 
2 
2 

10 
1 
3 

2 
7 
1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

14 
8 
5 
4 
1 

2 
1 

6 

1 

2 
1 

2 

2 
1 

3 
3 

1 

1 

1 

4 
5 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 
1 

1 

1 
1 

3 

1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 
1 

4^ 
74 

12 
17 
IS 
14 
16 
12 
8 

4 
6 
6 

95 

45 

86 
41 
18 
17 
15 

14 
11 
12 

7 
28 

18 
9 
5 

8 
1 

1 

3 
1 

3 
11 
17 
12 
5 

1 
2 

24 
2 
5 
14 
2 
1 
1 
3 
2 
1 

12 
2 
2 

2 
1 

4 

22 
20 
9 
2 
2 
11 
2 
2 
1 
3 

2 

1 

8 

1 
1 
2 

1 

9 

7 

1 

5 
3 

1 
1 

1 

2 
3 
3 

1 
10 
5 
5 
1 
2 

4 
1 

2 
1 

3 
2 

1 

2 

1 

8 
3 
6 
1 
5 
3 
1 
1 

2 
4 
12 

1 
1 

1 

1 
1 

3 

6 
4 
2 
3 
2 

5 

1 

1 

1 
9 

1 

2 
2 
1 

3 

1 
1 

10 
2 

2 
1 
1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

2 
1 

1 

57 
SS 
26 
28 
23 
12 
8 
10 
9 
4 
4 

22 
S9 
S3 
15 
IS 
6 
4 
4 
S 
0 
5 
1 

466 

144 
131 
50 
43 
41 
37 
28 
20 
18 
13 
10 
10 

117 
84 
69 
56 
31 
23 
19 
18 
14 
12 
12 
29 

Harvard  

Columbia  

Cornell  

Yale  

Chicago  

Clark  

Princeton  

Michigan  

Pennsylvania  

California  

Indiana  

Berlin  

Leipzig  

Gottingen  

Heidelberg  

Munich  

Strasburg  

Freiburg  

Bonn  

Zurich  

Vienna  

Wiirzburg  

Paris  

Total  

83  74;43 

38534759  12 

24 

13 

4 

563    987890 

3641 

49 

5 

35  10 

18  2 

4 

1029 

AMERICAN   MEN   OP    SCIENCE 


563 


It  would  be  desirable  to  compare  the  scien- 
tifi  men  and  the  scientific  work  of  the  United 
States  with  those  of  other  nations,  and  I  hope 
to  collect  data  on  this  subject.  It  is  my  im- 
pression from  such  information  as  is  on  hand 
that  we  produce  from  one  seventh  to  one  tenth 
of  the  world's  scientific  research,  but  that  we 
have  not  produced  one  tenth  of  its  recent 
great  discoveries  or  of  its  contemporary  great 
men.  With  our  vast  population  and  unlimited 
resources,  it  would  be  shameful  and  intolerable 
to  let  the  future  be  no  better  than  the  present. 
It  is  obvious  that  we  should  collect  without 
delay  the  information  that  would  tell  us  whe*e 
we  stand  among  the  nations. 

It  is  not  altogether  without  interest  to  find 


that  it  is  possible  to  reduce  to  order  facts  which 
might  be  supposed  to  be  outside  the  range  of 
the  natural  and  exact  sciences.  The  present 
articles  are,  however,  only  a  beginning  of  a 
study  of  scientific  men  as  a  group  and  of  the 
conditions  on  which  scientific  performance  de- 
pends. We  have  in  a  large  measure  explored 
the  material  world  and  subdued  it  to  our  uses ; 
it  is  now  our  business  to  secure  an  equal  in- 
crease in  our  knowledge  of  human  nature  and 
to  apply  it  for  our  welfare.  If  he  is  a  bene- 
factor to  mankind  who  makes  two  blades  of 
grass  grow  where  one  grew  before,  his  services 
would  be  immeasurably  greater  who  could 
enable  two  men  of  science  to  flourish  where 
there  had  been  but  one. 


A  FURTHER  STATISTICAL  STUDY  OF  AMERICAN  MEN  OF  SCIENCE 


THE  advancement  of  science  and  the  im- 
provement of  the  conditions  under  which  sci- 
entific work  is  done  are  of  such  vast  impor- 
tance for  society  that  even  the  most  modest 
attempt  to  introduce  scientific  method  into 
the  study  of  these  conditions  has  some  value. 
It  is  truly  both  exhilarating  and  appalling  to 
face  the  opportunities  and  responsibilities  of 
science  and  of  scientific  men.  The  applications 
of  science  have  quadrupled  the  wealth  which 
each  individual  produces  and  have  doubled 
the  length  of  human  life.  In  many  cases  the 
gain  has  been  greater  than  this.  In  trans- 
porting freighl  or  printing  a  newspaper,  the 
products  of  each  man's  labor  have  been  multi- 
plied a  hundredfold;  in  equal  measure  the 
danger  from  smallpox,  cholera  and  the  plague 
has  been  diminished. 

As  intercommunication  increases  between 
the  nations,  bringing  them  all  within  the  circle 
of  our  civilization,  and  as  the  total  population 
of  the  earth  grows,  the  number  of  scientific 
advances  becomes  continually  larger  and  the 
value  of  each  of  ever  greater  magnitude.  It  is 
thus  an  economic  law  that  the  means  of  sub- 
sistence tend  to  increase  more  rapidly  than  the 
population.1  When  the  applications  of  elec- 
tricity increase  the  efficiency  of  each  individ- 
ual on  the  average  by  twenty  per  cent. — as 
may  now  be  the  case  in  civilized  countries — 
the  economic  value  would  be  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  twenty  billion  dollars  a  year.  In 

1  This  inversion  of  the  law  of  Malthus,  to  which 
the  writer  has  called  attention  on  several  occa- 
sions (e.  g.,  SCIENCE,  December  18,  1896)  has 
recently  been  given  a  most  interesting  expression 
by  Professor  T.  H.  Norton  (The  Popular  Science 
Monthly,  September,  1910).  Both  the  number  and 
the  value  of  scientific  advances  being  directly 
proportional  to  the  total  population,  the  means  of 
subsistence  tend  to  increase  as  the  square  of  the 
population. 


comparison  with  a  sum  so  inconceivable,  the 
cost  of  science  since  the  days  of  Faraday  and 
Henry  is  altogether  insignificant.  In  the 
United  States  at  present  there  are  scarcely 
more  than  a  thousand  men  engaged  in  serious 
research  work,  and  they  do  not  on  the  average 
devote  more  than  half  their  time  to  it. 
Throughout  the  world  there  may  be  seven  to 
ten  times  as  many.  The  investigations  of 
these  men  may  cost  a  total  of  $20,000,000  a 
year,  perhaps  one  thousandth  of  what  may  be 
gained  by  the  applications  of  electricity,  or 
one  hundredth  of  what  is  saved  by  the  use  of 
the  phosphorus  match. 

But  man  does  not  live  alone  by  the  applica- 
tions of  electricity  and  the  use  of  the  phos- 
phorus match.  Science  has  given  us  a  new 
heaven  as  well  as  a  new  earth,  for  it  has 
checked  not  only  poverty  and  disease,  but  also 
superstition,  ignorance  and  unreason.  It  has 
done  away  with  slavery  and  with  the  need  of 
child  labor;  it  has  made  excessive  manual 
labor  by  women  or  by  men  unnecessary.  By 
giving  the  possibility  of  leisure  and  education 
to  all  it  has  made  democracy  possible.  Fi- 
nally science  has  not  only  given  us  leisure,  but 
also  the  means  to  occupy  that  leisure  in  a 
worthy  manner;  its  intellectual  and  emotional 
appeal  is  almost  equal  to  the  art  and  religion 
which  were  so  much  earlier  in  their  origin. 

Science  has  been  more  successful  in  the 
production  of  wealth  than  in  its  distribution 
and  use,  and  it  has  been  more  effective  in  its 
control  of  the  material  world  than  of  human 
conduct;  but  this  is  a  natural  result  of  neces- 
sary lines  of  development.  The  methods 
which  have  slowly  extended  from  physics 
and  chemistry  to  the  more  complicated  phe- 
nomena of  biology  will  give  us  sciences  of 
psychology,  sociology  and  anthropology  and 
applications  of  these  sciences  commensurate 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


565 


with  their  dominant  importance.  Science 
has,  indeed,  already  profoundly  altered  not 
only  the  material  conditions  of  life  but  also 
social  relations  and  mental  contents  and  atti- 
tudes. The  conditions  of  heredity  and  cir- 
cumstance which  determine  the  whole  course 
of  life  are  subject  to  its  control.  We  need 
only  to  obtain  the  knowledge  and  to  apply  it. 
If  an  improvement  of  ten  per  cent,  in  the 
cereal  crop  will  yield  a  billion  dollars  a  year, 
in  what  terms  of  money  should  an  increase  of 
ten  per  cent,  in  the  annual  output  of  science 
be  stated? 

The  application  of  scientific  methods  to  the 
advancement  of  science  is  in  one  sense  the  be- 
ginning of  science  and  in  another  one  of  its 
latest  undertakings.  We  are  at  present  al- 
most wantonly  ignorant  and  careless  in  regard 
to  the  conditions  which  favor  or  hinder  scien- 
tific work.  We  do  not  know  whether  progress 
is  in  the  main  due  to  a  large  number  of  faith- 
ful workers  or  to  the  genius  of  a  few.  We  do 
not  know  to  what  extent  it  may  be  possible  to 
advance  science  by  increasing  the  number  of 
scientific  positions  or  how  far  such  an  increase 
might  be  expected  to  add  to  the  number  of 
men  of  genius.  We  do  not  know  to  what  ex- 
tent increased  salaries,  better  facilities  and 
greater  leisure  would  favor  the  quantity  and 
quality  of  our  work.  We  do  not  know  to 
what  extent  non-rational  sanctions,  such  as 
reputation,  offices,  titles,  degrees,  prizes, 
membership  in  exclusive  societies  and  the  like 
are  effective.  We  do  not  know  whether  it  is 
wise  to  combine  teaching  with  research  or  ap- 
plied with  pure  science.  We  do  not  know 
whether  it  is  better  for  the  professor  and  in- 
vestigator to  have  a  moderate  salary,  a  life 
position  and  a  pension,  or  to  engage  in  severe 
competition  for  large  prizes;  whether  obedi- 
ence and  discipline  should  be  prescribed  or 
the  largest  individual  liberty  allowed.  We 
know  but  little  as  to  the  kind  of  education, 
methods  of  work  and  mode  of  life,  which  are 
most  favorable  to  scientific  productivity.  In 
the  face  of  endless  problems  of  this  character 
we  are  as  empirical  in  our  methods  as  the 
doctor  of  physic  a  hundred  years  ago  or  the 


agricultural  laborer  to-day.  It  is  surely  time 
for  scientific  men  to  apply  scientific  methods 
to  determine  the  circumstances  that  promote 
or  hinder  the  advancement  of  science.  We 
should  begin  where  and  when  we  can;  even 
though  the  results  of  the  first  efforts  may  ap- 
pear somewhat  trivial,  we  may  proceed  in  the 
confident  belief  that  in  the  end  the  advance- 
ment of  science  will  become  an  applied  sci- 
ence. 

In  a  series  of  three  articles  published  in  the 
numbers  of  SCIENCE  for  November  23  and  30 
and  December  7,  1906,  the  writer  described  the 
methods  which  he  used  to  select  a  group  of  a 
thousand  leading  American  men  of  science, 
the  application  of  these  methods  to  the  meas- 
urement of  scientific  merit,  and  the  origin 
and  distribution  of  the  group.  About  seven 
years  having  elapsed  since  the  selection  of  the 
group  treated  in  these  articles  and  a  second 
edition  of  the  "  Biographical  Directory  of 
American  Men  of  Science  "  being  in  prepara- 
tion, it  seemed  desirable  to  repeat  the  process 
of  determining  the  thousand  leading  scien- 
tific men  in  the  United  States.  It  is  worth 
while  to  learn  what  changes  have  taken  place 
in  the  composition  of  this  group  and  in  the 
distribution  of  the  scientific  men  among  vari- 
ous institutions  and  in  different  parts  of  the 
country.  A  list  of  scientific  men  as  nearly 
contemporary  as  might  be  was  also  wanted 
for  some  further  studies  of  the  conditions  of 
heredity  and  environment  which  are  favorable 
to  scientific  productivity. 

The  methods  used  to  select  the  group  of  a 
thousand  leading  men  of  science  were  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  before  and  need  not  be 
redescribed  in  detail.  The  scientific  men  were 
distributed  among  twelve  sciences  as  previ- 
ously. It  was  intended  that  the  number  in 
each  science  should  be  proportional  to  the 
total  number  of  investigators  in  that  science, 
and  it  was  as  nearly  so  as  is  needful  for  the 
purpose  in  view.  The  distribution  was  as  fol- 
lows: Chemistry,  175;  physics,  150;  zoology, 
150;  botany,  100;  geology,  100;  mathematics, 
80;  pathology,  60;  astronomy,  50;  psychology, 


566 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


50;  physiology,  40;  anatomy,  25;  anthropol- 
ogy, 20. 

In  each  science  twice  as  many  names  were 
selected  and  written  on  slips  with  the  ad- 
dresses and  positions.  The  ten  men  of  science 
who  stood  at  the  head  of  the  list  in  each  sci- 
ence in  the  previous  arrangement  were  asked 
to  arrange  the  names  in  that  science  in  the 
order  of  merit.  The  memorandum  of  instruc- 
tions read :  "  It  is  obvious  that  such  an  order 
can  be  only  approximate,  and  for  the  objects  in 
view  an  approximation  is  all  that  is  needed. 
The  judgments  are  possible,  because  they  are 
as  a  matter  of  fact  made  in  elections  to  a  so- 
ciety of  limited  membership,  in  filling  chairs 
at  a  university,  etc.  By  merit  is  under- 
stood contributions  to  the  advancement  of 
science,  primarily  by  research,  but  teaching, 
administration,  editing,  the  compilation  of 
text-books,  etc.,  should  be  considered.  The 
different  factors  that  make  a  man  efficient  in 
advancing  science  must  be  roughly  balanced." 

There  were  thus  at  hand  in  each  science  ten 
arrangements  of  those  known  to  have  done 
research  work  in  the  order  of  the  value  of 
their  work,  as  estimated  by  those  having  ex- 
pert knowledge.  The  ten  positions  assigned 
to  each  individual  were  then  averaged,  and 
the  workers  in  each  science  were  arranged  in 
order.  The  lists  for  the  twelve  sciences  were 
interpolated  to  form  a  combined  list  of  a 
thousand  scientific  men.  A  second  group  in 
each  science  and  a  second  group  of  a  thousand 
scientific  men  were  in  like  manner  obtained. 
This  was  not  done  before,  and  the  second 
thousand  has  less  validity  than  the  first  thou- 
sand. It  has,  however,  a  certain  interest  for 
purposes  of  comparison. 

The  average  of  ten  judgments  is  not  neces- 
sarily more  correct  than  any  one  of  these 
judgments;  the  conditions  are  similar  to  ob- 
servations in  the  exact  sciences.  One  good 
observation  may  have  more  validity  than  the 
average  of  a  number  of  observations  made 
under  less  favorable  conditions.  But  if  ten 
scientific  men  concerning  whose  competence 
it  is  not  possible  to  discriminate  in  advance 
make  a  judgment,  we  may  take  the  average  as 


the  most  probable  value.  If  we  had  but  a 
single  judgment  we  should  not  know  its  valid- 
ity, but  with  ten  judgments  the  probable  error 
can  be  calculated.  These  probable  errors  tell 
us  not  only  the  limits  within  which  the  place 
of  an  individual  in  the  series  is  likely  to  be 
correct,  but  also  measure  the  differences  be- 
tween the  individuals. 

This  method  of  converting  a  qualitative 
series  into  a  series  of  quantitative  differences 
may  be  illustrated  by  the  case  in  which  it  was 
used  by  the  writer  for  the  first  time.2  Some 
two  hundred  shades  of  gray  were  made,  giving 
approximately  equal  differences  in  illumina- 
tion between  white  and  black.  In  such  a 
series  the  grays  toward  the  white  end  ap- 
pear more  alike  than  those  toward  the  black 
end,  and  two  adjacent  grays  are  indistinguish- 
able. Psychologically  it  is  a  qualitative  series. 
If  now  the  grays  are  arranged  in  the  order  of 
brightness  a  number  of  times  by  the  same  or 
different  observers  and  the  average  position 
in  the  series  of  each  gray  is  determined,  the 
mean  variation  is  inversely  proportional  to  the 
psychological  differences  between  the  grays. 
There  is  thus  determined  the  quantitative 
differences  in  the  perception  and  its  relation 
to  the  physical  differences  between  the  lights. 
The  same  methods  have  been  used  in  the  Co- 
lumbia laboratory  of  psychology  to  measure 
the  validity  of  beliefs,  the  beauty  of  pictures, 
differences  in  traits  of  character,  literary  skill 
and  efficiency  in  various  performances. 

The  method  used  enables  us  to  measure  not 
only  differences  in  scientific  merit,  but  also 
the  accuracy  of  judgment  of  those  who  make 
the  arrangements.  It  would  be  possible  to  de- 
termine whether  those  more  eminent  have  the 
more  accurate  judgments,  at  what  age  the 
individuals  are  most  competent  and  the  like. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  judgments  in  the 
present  case  were  made  by  those  most  eminent 
in  each  science  who  were  willing  to  undertake 
the  task.  Of  the  ten  in  each  science  who  were 
placed  at  the  head  of  the  list  in  the  previous 

' "  The  Time  of  Perception  as  a  Measure  of 
Differences  in  Intensity,"  Philos.  Studien,  19: 
63-68,  1902. 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


567 


study,8  or  120  in  all,  80  consented  to  under- 
take the  arrangement,  and  of  these  68  sent  in 
valid  lists.  Others  in  the  order  of  eminence 
were  then  asked  until  ten  lists  were  obtained 
in  each  science.  This  study  has  thus  only 
been  made  possible  by  the  cooperation  of  those 
whose  time  is  of  much  value.  My  personal 
obligations  to  them  are  very  great. 

The  names  of  those  selected  for  arrange- 
ment included  all  who  were  known  to  have 
done  research  work  of  any  consequence,  and 
those  who  arranged  them  were  asked  to  add 
any  who  had  been  omitted.  Some  names  de- 
serving consideration  were  doubtless  neglected 
and  consequently  would  not  find  a  place  in 
the  first  or  second  thousands  as  ultimately 
selected.  Each  of  those  included  in  the  first 
group  is  probably  among  the  leading  thou- 
sand scientific  men  in  the  United  States,  but 
there  are  a  few  others  who  belong  to  this 
group  though  not  included.  It  might  be  a 
service  to  science  to  print  the  list  of  our 
thousand  leading  scientific  men  in  the  order 
of  merit  together  with  the  probable  error  of 
each  position,  but  it  would  require  courage  to 
do  this,  and  perhaps  it  would  not  be  possible 
to  obtain  the  arrangement  if  it  were  to  be 
made  known.  In  the  "  Biographical  Directory 
of  American  Men  of  Science  "  those  are  indi- 
cated by  stars  who  belong  either  to  the  group 
as  selected  seven  years  ago  or  as  selected  now. 
Those  who  have  won  a  place  in  the  group  can 
be  identified  by  a  comparison  of  the  two  edi- 
tions of  the  book.  Those  who  have  lost  their 
places  in  the  group  can  not  be  known. 

The  arrangements  of  each  of  the  two  lists 
extended  over  a  period  of  some  months.  The 
first  list  may  be  dated  as  approximately  of 
January  1,  1903,  and  the  second  list  as  ap- 
proximately of  January  1,  1910.  The  distri- 
butions given  in  the  previous  paper  refer 
approximately  to  January  1,  1906,  the  resi- 
dences and  positions  used  being  those  given  in 

8  Six  were  not  asked  owing  to  their  illness  or 
absence  from  the  country.  These  conditions  also 
account  for  a  number  of  those  who  did  not  reply 
to  the  letter  or  did  not  consent  to  make  the 
arrangement. 


the  first  edition  of  the  directory.  For  the 
present  list,  the  residences  and  positions  are 
those  of  January  1,  1910.  It  would  be  better 
if  the  arrangement  of  the  first  list  and  the 
distributions  referred  to  the  same  date,  but  it 
was  not  possible  to  work  up  the  data  more 
promptly,  as  the  writer  was  able  to  attend  to 
the  compilation  of  the  directory  and  the 
statistics  only  during  the  summer  months. 
In  collecting  and  compiling  the  data  he  has 
had  the  very  valuable  assistance  of  Professor 
V.  A.  C.  Henmon,  of  the  University  of  Wis- 
consin, and  of  Mr.  E.  K.  Strong,  Jr.,  fellow  in 
psychology  in  Columbia  University. 

Those  included  in  the  list  of  1903  who  died 
prior  to  1910  number  58.  It  is  a  roll  of  honor 
which  may  be  given  here: 

1903    (in  part) 

BOLTON,  HENBY  CABRINGTON  Chemistry 

RHOADS,  EDWABD  Physics 

1904 

BEECHEB,  CHABLES  E.  Geology 

DBOWN,  THOMAS  MESSENGER  Chemistry 

HATCHES,  JOHN  BELL  Geology 

HERBICK,  CLARENCE  LUTHEB  Zoology 

PALMER,  ARTHUR  WILLIAM  Chemistry 
DE  SCHWEINITZ,  EMiL  ALEXANDEB       Chemistry 

1905 

BBACE,  DEWITT  BRISTOL  Physics 

ELDRIDGE,  GEORGE  HOMANS  Geology 

ELLIS,  JOB  BICKNELL  Botany 

EWELL,  EBVIN  E.  Chemistry 

MATTHEWS,  WASHINGTON  Anthropology 

PACKARD,  ALPHEUS  SPBINO  Zoology 

PRESCOTT,  ALBERT  BENJAMIN  Chemistry 

WARDER,  ROBERT  BOWNE  Chemistry 

WOOD,  EDWARD  STICKNEY  Chemistry 

1906 

LANGLEY,  SAMUEL  PIERPONT  Physics 

MACCALLUM,  JOHN  BRUCE  Anatomy 

MILLER,  EDMUND  HOWD  Chemistry 

MORGAN,  ANDREW  PRICE  Botany 

PAULMIEB,  FREDERICK  CLARK  Zoology 

PEIRCE,  JAMES  MILLS  Mathematics 

PENFIELD,  SAMUEL  LEWIS  Mineralogy 

RUSSELL,  ISRAEL  COOK  Geology 

SHALEB,  NATHANIEL  SOUTHGATE  Geology 


568 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


1907 

ATWATEB,  WILBUR  OLIN  Chemistry 

CALDWELL,  GEORGE  CHAPMAN  Chemistry 

CARROLL,  JAMES  pathology 

CLARK,  GAYLORD  PARSONS  Physiology 

GARDINER,  EDWARD  GARDINER  Zoology 

GATSCHET,  ALBERT  SAMUEL  Anthropology 

HEILPRIN,  ANGELO  Geology 

NEWELL,  WILLIAM  WELLS  Anthropology 

REES,  JOHN  KHOM  Astronomy 

SAFFOHD,  JAMES  MEBBILL  Geology 

1908 

ANTHONY,  WILLIAM  ARNOLD  Physics 

ASHMEAD,  WILLIAM  HARRIS  Zoology 

AUSTEN,  PETER  TOWNSEND  Chemistry 

BROOKS,  WILLIAM  KEITH  Zoology 

DAVENPORT,  GEORGE  EDWARD  Botany 

GIBBS,  OLIVER  WOLCOTT  Chemistry 

JOHNSON,  SAMUEL  WILLIAM  Chemistry 
KELLEBMAN,  WILLIAM  ASHBBOOK       Botany 

LEE,  LESLIE  ALEXANDER  Zoology 

MASCHKE,  HEINHICH  Mathematics 

MASON,  OTIS  TUFTON  Anthropology 

SNOW,  FRANCIS  HUNTINGTON  Zoology 

UNDERWOOD,  LUCIEN  MARCUS  Botany 

WHITEHEAD,  CABELL  Chemistry 

YOUNG,  CHARLES  AUGUSTUS  Astronomy 

1909 

DUDLEY,  CHARLES  BENJAMIN  Chemistry 

HARRIS,  WILLIAM  TORRE Y  Psychology 

HOUGH,  GEORGE  WASHINGTON  Astronomy 

NEWCOMB,  SIMON  Astronomy 

STEARNS,  ROBERT  EDWARDS  CARTER  Zoology 

STBINGHAM,  WASHINGTON  IRVING  Mathematics 

TUFTS,  FRANK  LEO  Physics 

The  death  rates  for  the  six  past  years  have 
been  6,  9,  9,  10,  15  and  7,  on  the  average  9.3 
per  thousand.  The  rates  for  those  under  and 
over  fifty,  respectively,  were  approximately  3 
and  21.  The  number  of  cases  is  too  small  for 
reliable  data,  but  they  show  a  youthful  scien- 
tific population.  In  Great  Britain  there  are 
annually  elected  into  the  Eoyal  Society  fif- 
teen new  fellows,  and  a  membership  of  about 
450  is  maintained.  The  death  rate  is  conse- 
quently over  30.  It  has  been  claimed  that 
scientific  men  live  longer  than  the  average, 
and  they  probably  do,  but  this  can  not  be 


proved  from  the  age  at  which  they  die,  unless 
the  age  at  which  they  become  scientific  men 
is  known.  If,  however,  we  assume  that  scien- 
tific men  live  to  the  average  age,  we  can  from 
the  age  at  which  they  die  determine  the  age  at 
which  they  become  scientific  men  or  reach  a 
given  degree  of  eminence. 

In  addition  to  those  who  died,  there  were 
removed  from  the  thousand  nine  foreign  men 
of  science,  who  are  no  longer  residents  of  the 
United  States,  and  one  other  man  whose  ad- 
dress is  unknown.  There  would  thus  be  68 
vacancies  on  the  list  of  1910  to  be  filled  by 
new  men.  In  the  order  of  the  list,  there  is  a 
probable  error  which  increases  from  about  10 
places  at  the  top  to  about  100  places  at  the 
bottom.  Consequently  if  the  same  scientific 
men  were  rearranged  under  the  same  condi- 
tions, each  of  those  in  the  last  hundred  would 
be  subject  to  a  chance  of  one  in  four  or  more 
of  being  dropped  from  the  list.  In  a  general 
way  37  from  the  last  hundred,  15  from  the 
next  to  last,  or  ninth  hundred,  five  from  the 
eighth  hundred  and  one  from  the  seventh 
hundred — 58  in  all — might  be  expected  to 
drop  from  the  thousand  as  a  result  of  rear- 
rangement. 

Apart  from  the  68  who  died  or  were  re- 
moved and  the  58  changes  due  to  a  chance 
variation,  there  were  143  on  the  list  of  1903 
who  failed  to  find  a  place  on  the  list  of  1910. 
These  are  the  scientific  men  who  did  not  main- 
tain their  positions  in  competition  with  their 
colleagues.  There  were  269  who  attained  a 
place  on  the  list  of  1910  for  the  first  time.  It 
seems  best  to  remove  from  this  group  those 
who  would  probably  have  been  given  a  place 
on  the  list  of  1903,  but  were  not  considered  at 
the  time.  They  number  31,  of  whom  only  one 
is  a  foreigner  who  came  to  this  country  in 
the  period  of  seven  years. 

There  were  126  foreign-born  men  of  science 
on  the  list  of  1903.  While  the  majority  came 
to  this  country  before  attaining  scientific 
reputation,  a  large  number  were  called  from 
Canada,  Great  Britain,  Germany  and  other 
countries  to  fill  positions  in  our  universities, 
of  whom  seven  were  among  our  leading  hun- 


AMERICAN  MEN   OF   SCIENCE  569 

TABLE    I.      BIBTHPLACE    AND    RESIDENCE   OF   THOSE    ADDED    TO    AND    DEOPPED   FBOM   THE   LIST 


Birthplace. 

Residence. 

Men  Added. 

Men  Dropped. 

Men  Added 

Men  Dropped. 

1 

•d 

o 

1 

«l 

0 

•g 

<a 

o 

a 
o 

O 

"3 
o 
H 

1 

•d 
O 

"3 
"o 
H 

0 

•a 

S 

Q 

0 

a 
o 
0 

a 

I 

North  Atlantic. 
Maine  

5 
3 
2 
24 
3 
6 
31 
3 
13 

0 
2 
1 
7 
2 
0 
3 
1 
1 

2 
2 
1 
1 
0 
2 
0 
0 

19 
11 
10 
17 
11 
5 
8 
5 
0 
0 
1 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

4 
0 
0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

3 
1 
0 
5 
1 
1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

4 

1 
4 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 

6 
3 
3 

27 
4 
6 
36 
4 
14 

0 
2 

1 
7 
2 
0 
3 
1 
1 

2 
2 
2 
1 
0 
2 
0 
0 

23 
12 
14 
17 
11 
5 
9 
5 
0 
0 
1 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
4 
0 
1 
1 
0 

8 
5 
3 
21 
0 
5 
43 
6 
14 

1 
4 
3 
5 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 

2 
2 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 

15 
3 
8 
8 
10 
1 
3 
4 
0 
0 
1 
1 

0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 
1 
1 
9 
1 
2 
18 
1 
4 

0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

6 
0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

10 
6 
4 
30 

1 

7 
61 
7 
18 

1 
4 
3 
6 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 

3 
2 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 

21 
3 
9 
9 
10 
2 
3 
4 
0 
0 
1 
1 

0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 
1 

0 
40 
2 
14 
31 
5 
10 

0 
11 
23 
0 
1 
3 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

2 
0 
0 

9 
5 
25 
5 
12 
2 
1 
6 
0 
1 
4 
2 

0 
0 
2 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

14 
0 
0 
2 
0 

1 
0 
0 
3 
1 
2 
7 
0 
3 

0 
2 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
3 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 
1 
0 
43 
3 
16 
38 
5 
13 

0 
13 
26 
0 
1 
3 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
2 
0 
0 

10 
5 
28 
5 
13 
3 
1 
6 
0 
1 
4 
2 

0 
0 
2 
0 

1 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

15 
0 

1 
2 
1 

1 
1 
1 
23 
1 
4 
49 
6 
19 

1 
6 

24 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 

2 
2 

0 
0 
1 
2 
0 
0 

6 
6 
15 
2 
0 
4 
3 
1 
1 
0 
3 
1 

0 
1 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
10 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
6 
2 
4 
9 
2 
5 

0 

2 
11 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 

0 

2 
0 
3 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 

0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 
1 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
1 

0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 

1 
1 

29 
3 
8 
60 

8 
25 

1 
8 
36 

1 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 

2 
2 
0 
0 

1 

3 
0 
0 

8 
6 
18 
7 
0 
4 
3 
1 
1 
0 
4 
2 

0 
1 

1 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
13 
1 
0 
0 
0 

New  Hampshire. 
Vermont  

Massachusetts  .  . 
Rhode  Island  .  .  . 
Connecticut  .... 
New  York  

New  Jersey  

Pennsylvania.  .  . 
South  Atlantic. 
Delaware  

Maryland  

Dist.  of  Col  
Virginia  

West  Virginia  .  .  . 
North  Carolina   . 
South  Carolina  .  . 
Georgia  

Florida  

South  Central. 
Kentucky  

Tennessee  

Alabama  

Mississippi  

Louisiana  

Texas  

Oklahoma  

Arkansas  

North  Central. 
Ohio  

Indiana  

Illinois    

Michigan  

Wisconsin  

Minnesota  

Iowa  

Missouri  

North  Dakota  .  . 
South  Dakota  .  .  . 
Nebraska  

Kansas  

Western. 
Montana  

Wyoming  

Colorado  

New  Mexico  .... 
Arizona  

Utah  

Nevada  

Idaho  

Washington.  .  .  . 
Oregon  

California  

Alaska  

Hawaii  

Philippines  

Panama  

570 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


Birthplace. 

Residence. 

Men  Added. 

Men  Dropped. 

Men  Added. 

Men  Dropped. 

ti 

a> 
fc 

T3 

o 

| 

I 

3 

O 

tj 
1 

<0 

a 

0 

0 

"5 
"o 
H 

i 

<o 

* 

"3 

0 

1 

6 

•d 

03 
<P 

Q 

ai 
§ 

O 

"5 

I 

8 
0 
3 
0 
1 
5 
0 
0 
0 
3 
1 
1 
1 
0 

1 

0 

1 

0 
0 

1 

0 

1 

0 
0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

9 
0 
4 
0 
1 
6 
0 
0 
0 
3 
2 
1 
2 
0 

6 
6 
2 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
1 

2 
2 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

5 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

13 
9 
3 
1 
1 
2 
2 
0 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 
1 

0 
0 

0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 
1 

0 
0 
0 

1 
1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Canada  

England  

Scotland  

Wales       

Ireland  

Germany  

Switzerland  

Belgium  

Austria  

Russia  

Sweden  

Norway  

Japan  

China  

Unknown  

7 

0 

7 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total  

238 

31 

269 

201 

58 

10 

269 

238 

31 

269 

201 

58 

10 

269 

dred  men  of  science.  The  members  of  this 
group  have  added  greatly  to  the  scientific 
strength  of  the  country,  not  only  by  the  re- 
search that  they  have  accomplished,  but  also 
because  they  have  brought  familiarity  with 
the  educational  methods  of  other  nations,  and 
high  ideals  of  scholarship  and  of  the  dignity 
of  the  career  of  the  scientific  man  and  uni- 
versity professor.  It  is  surprising  and  truly 
most  unfortunate  that  while  nine  leading  for- 
eign men  of  science  have  returned  to  their 
native  countries  during  the  past  seven  years, 
only  one  has  come  to  America — one  scientific 
man  among  seven  million  immigrants.  There 
is  no  way  by  which  the  abundant  wealth  of 
the  country  could  be  used  to  greater  advan- 
tage than  by  bringing  to  it  men  of  promise 
and  men  of  distinction. 

We  have  then  a  group  of  238  scientific  men, 
who  in  the  course  of  seven  years  have  attained 
a  place  among  the  leading  thousand,  and  a 
group  of  201  who  have  lost  their  places. 
These  two  groups  deserve  careful  considera- 
tion. Together  with  the  other  groups  added 
to  and  taken  from  the  list,  they  are  distributed 
geographically  in  respect  to  birthplace  and 
residence,  as  shown  in  Table  I. 

Massachusetts  still  retains  its  leadership 
in  the  production  of  scientific  men,  but  it  has 
lost  ground  in  the  course  of  the  past  seven 


years,  while  the  north  central  states  have 
gained.  In  the  list  of  1903,  the  birth  rate  of 
scientific  men  was  at  the  rate  per  million 
population  of  about  50  in  Maine,  New  Hamp- 
shire and  Vermont,  109  in  Massachusetts  and 
87  in  Connecticut.  If  for  purposes  of  com- 
parison we  increase  the  238  new  men  to  a 
thousand  and  again  by  22.6  per  cent,  to  allow 
for  the  increase  in  population  of  the  country 
between  1860  and  1870,  the  corresponding  fig- 
ures (referred  to  the  census  of  1870)  would 
be:  Maine,  New  Hampshire  and  Vermont, 
about  40;  Massachusetts  85,  Connecticut  57. 
By  the  same  method  of  comparison  the  figures 
have  decreased  in  the  central  Atlantic  states, 
as  follows : 

New   York  47  to  36 

New  Jersey  42  to  17 

Pennsylvania   23  to  19 

Maryland   38  to  13 

On  the  other  hand,  the  north  central  states 
show  an  increase,  the  figures  being: 

Ohio    32  to  35 

Indiana  21  to  34 

Illinois   24  to  20 

Michigan    36  to  74 

Wisconsin  45  to  54 

Minnesota    23  to  59 

Iowa    30  to  34 

Missouri 12  to  15 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


571 


The  cases  are  too  few  to  give  exact  quanti- 
tative data,  but  a  comparison  of  the  north  At- 
lantic and  the  north  central  states  is  signifi- 
cant. The  former  have  lost  seriously  in  their 
production  of  scientific  men,  while  the  latter 
have  gained  in  every  case  except  Illinois. 
Michigan  rivals  Massachusetts  and  surpasses 
every  other  state.  New  York  on  the  list  of 
1903  surpassed  every  north  central  state, 
whereas  the  new  men  on  the  list  of  1910  equal 
or  exceed  those  from  New  York  in  six  of  the 
eight  north  central  states.  The  big  cities — 
New  York,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore  and  Chi- 
cago— have  lost  ground.  The  birth  rate  per 
million  inhabitants  on  the  basis  of  1,000  sci- 
entific men  has  fallen  as  follows: 

New  York   71  to  33 

Philadelphia    49  to  23 

Baltimore   94  to  19 

Chicago  73  to  17 

These  cities,  in  spite  of  their  vast  wealth  and 
great  universities,  and  the  fact  that  the  am- 
bitious and  successful  are  drawn  to  them,  are 
failing  to  produce  scientific  men.  For  the 
thousand  of  1903,  it  was  found  that  the  urban 
birth  rate  was  50  and  the  rural  birth  rate  24. 
The  238  new  men  are  too  few  to  give  reliable 
figures,  but  it  seems  that  the  cities  are  failing 
to  produce  scientific  men,  and  presumably 
other  men  of  intellectual  performance,  to  an 
extent  that  is  ominous. 

Nebraska,  Kansas  and  the  states  west  to  the 
Pacific  have  not  improved,  as  the  writer  would 
have  anticipated  from  the  students  in  psychol- 
ogy who  have  worked  with  him.  Probably  the 
gain  in  the  north  central  states  is  now  extend- 
ing westward  and  will  show  later.  The  south- 
ern states,  though  still  lamentably  deficient 
in  their  productivity  of  scientific  men,  have 
improved  decidedly.  They  have  produced  22 
scientific  men  among  the  238,  as  compared 
before  with  48  among  the  1,000. 

Among  the  238  men  who  have  obtained  a 
place  on  the  list,  23  were  born  abroad,  as  com- 
pared with  126  among  1,000  on  the  list  of 
1903.  The  percentage  from  Canada  and  Ger- 
many is  the  same  and  it  is  larger  from  Russia. 


In  the  case  of  other  countries  the  numbers  are 
too  small  to  be  significant,  except  England, 
from  which  country  there  were  25  in  the  list 
of  1903  and  not  a  single  one  among  the  new 
men  on  the  list  of  1910.  As  has  been  already 
noted,  only  one  foreigner  has  been  called  to 
this  country  of  such  scientific  standing  that 
he  would  have  clearly  deserved  a  place  on  the 
list  of  1903.  Nearly  all  the  foreign-born  sci- 
entific men  acquired  their  scientific  reputation 
after  coming  to  this  country.  Fifteen  of  the 
23  were  wholly  or  partly  educated  in  the 
United  States. 

A  comparison  of  the  first  and  eighth  col- 
umns in  the  table  will  show  which  states  have 
retained  fewer  men  than  they  have  produced 
and  which  have  drawn  on  other  states.  Thus 
the  three  rural  New  England  states  have  pro- 
duced 10  men  and  have  retained  but  two, 
while  Massachusetts  has  produced  24  and  has 
at  present  40.  New  York  has  exactly  as  many 
as  it  has  produced,  31,  though  of  course  the 
individuals  are  not  all  the  same.  The  District 
of  Columbia  must  depend  on  other  parts  of  the 
country  for  its  scientific  men;  the  number  it 
has  obtained,  23,  is  just  the  number  born 
abroad,  so  the  balance  is  even  among  the 
,  states.  Illinois  has  called  men  from  other 
states,  Wisconsin  and  Missouri  have  main- 
tained nearly  an  even  balance,  while  the  other 
central  states  have  lost  their  men — Michigan 
12  of  17,  Ohio  10  of  19,  Indiana  6  of  11  and 
Iowa  7  of  8.  It  seems  a  pity  that  these 
wealthy  states  can  not  retain  the  men  they 
produce  or  make  an  equal  exchange  with  other 
states.  The  western  states  have  tended  to  add 
to  the  number  of  men  they  have  produced, 
thus  California  has  produced  4  and  acquired 
10  more.  The  southern  states  have  lost  their 
men.  Their  increasing  wealth  has  led  to 
greater  productivity,  but  they  have  not  yet 
learned  the  importance  of  retaining  and  se- 
curing scientific  men. 

Reviewing  the  table  with  reference  to  those 
who  have  obtained  a  place  on  the  list  or  have 
been  dropped  from  it,  we  find  that  Massachu- 
setts and  Connecticut,  which  already  had  of 
all  the  states  the  largest  percentages  of  scien- 


572 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


tific  men  in  their  populations — 51  and  47  per 
million — now  show  the  greatest  gains.  Nearly 
one  fourth  of  the  new  men  on  the  list  reside 
in  these  two  states,  which  have  but  5  per  cent, 
of  the  population  of  continental  United  States. 
At  the  same  time,  a  comparatively  small  per- 
centage of  their  scientific  men  have  failed  to 
maintain  their  places  on  the  list,  so  that  their 
net  gains  have  been  22,  or  about  12  per  cent. 
The  figures  refer  to  new  men  who  have  ob- 
tained places  among  the  thousand  in  the 
course  of  the  past  seven  years  or  to  those  who 
have  lost  their  places  on  the  list,  and  not  to 
men  who  have  maintained  their  places  and 
have  removed  from  one  state  to  another. 
These  two  states  have  been  fortunate  in  the 
possession  or  skilful  in  the  selection  of  young 
men  of  ability;  and  credit  should  be  given  to 
their  three  great  educational  institutions — 
Harvard,  the  Massachusetts  Institute  and 
Yale.  Another  center  of  scientific  activity 
and  growth  is  found  in  the  states  of  Illinois 
and  Wisconsin,  and  is  there  also  due  to  three 
leading  universities.  Illinois  has  28  and 
Wisconsin  13  of  the  men  added,  while  of  those 
dropped  from  the  list  Illinois  has  18  and  Wis- 
consin none.  The  two  states  have  a  net  gain 
of  23  men,  or  about  28  per  cent.  Missouri 
also  shows  a  gain,  while  the  other  north  cen- 
tral states  remain  about  stationary. 

New  York,  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania 
have  more  men  who  have  died  or  been  crowded 
off  the  list  of  the  first  thousand  scientific  men 
than  have  attained  places  on  it.  The  net  loss 
has  been  22  in  New  York,  3  in  New  Jersey 
and  12  in  Pennsylvania.  This  is  a  sinister 
record  for  this  center  of  vast  wealth  with  its 
richly  endowed  universities.  These  three 
states  can  but  ill  bear  comparison  with  the 
two  progressive  centers  in  the  northeast  and 
north  central  states. 

The  District  of  Columbia  has  26  of  the  men 
added  and  36  of  the  men  dropped  out.  It  has 
suffered  more  serious  losses  from  death  than 
any  other  region.  Washington  and  the  scien- 
tific bureaus  under  the  government  have  lost 
somewhat.  Large  appropriations  "are  made 
and  useful  work  is  done,  but  there  seems  to  be 


a  lack  of  men  of  genius  and  a  paucity  of 
important  discovery.  The  Smithsonian  Insti- 
tution under  Henry,  Baird  and  Langley,  the 
Geological  Survey  under  Powell,  the  Naval 
Observatory  when  Newcomb  and  Hall  were 
there,  had  promise  and  distinction  which  they 
lack  to-day. 

The  western  states  have  about  maintained 
their  creditable  position,  while  the  southern 
states  have  fallen  still  further  behind.  South 
Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida,  Mississippi,  Ala- 
bama, Louisiana,  Tennessee  and  Kentucky  had 
among  them  only  10  scientific  men  in  the  list 
of  1903.  One  man  has  been  added  and  six 
lost.  This  record  must  be  characterized  as 
discreditable.  The  policy  which  leaves  the 
south  almost  without  scientific  leaders  is  most 
foolish,  even  from  the  strictly  utilitarian  point 
of  view.  It  appears  that  here  too  "  he  that 
hath,  to  him  shall  be  given :  and  he  that  hath 
not,  from  him  shall  be  taken  even  that  which 
he  hath." 

The  institutions  with  which  two  or  more  of 
the  men  added  to  the  list  are  connected,  to- 
gether with  those  dropped,  are  given  in  Table 
II.  As  has  been  already  indicated,  Harvard, 
the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology 
and  Yale  in  New  England,  and  Chicago,  Illi- 
nois and  Wisconsin  in  the  north  central  region 
have  been  particularly  fortunate  in  the  pos- 
session of  younger  men  who  have  acquired 
scientific  reputation  in  the  course  of  recent 
years.  The  same  institutions  have  been 
equally  happy  in  not  having  many  men  who 
have  lost  their  positions  on  the  thousand. 
This  double  success  can  not  be  attributed  to 
chance,  but  must  indicate  skill  in  the  selection 
of  men  or  an  environment  favorable  to  good 
work.  The  Johns  Hopkins  and  Stanford  also 
stand  well.  Columbia,  Cornell  and  California 
are  the  three  universities  which  have  lost  the 
most.  While  Harvard  and  Yale  have  about 
three  times  as  many  men  who  have  won  a 
place  as  have  lost  it,  Columbia  has  twice  as 
many  who  have  been  dropped  from  the  list  as 
have  been  added  to  it.  In  the  other  universi- 
ties and  colleges  the  changes  have  been 
smaller,  but  they  have  considerable  signifi- 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


573 


TABU:  n.    INSTITUTIONS  WITH  WHICH  THE  MEN 

ABE   CONNECTED    WHO    HAVE   BEEN   ADDED 
AND  DEOPPED 


Institution. 

Men  Added. 

Men  Dropped. 

» 
o> 

fc 

22 
13 
11 
11 
9 
8 
8 
8 
8 
6 
6 
5 
5 
5 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
3 
3 
3 
3 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
46 

238 

•d 

O 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 
1 

0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
18 

"3 
o 

_H_ 

23 
14 
12 
12 
10 
10 
9 
8 
8 
7 
6 
5 
5 
5 
5 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
3 
3 
3 
3 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
64 

269 

O 

6 
3 
0 
0 
6 
3 
2 
1 
12 
1 
11 
0 
6 
3 
3 
0 
4 
1 
2 
0 
0 
1 
2 
4 
3 
1 
0 
1 
2 
0 
1 
0 
0 
3 
2 
0 
4 
2 
0 
1 
111 

•d 
m 

A 

3 
1 
0 
4 
1 
1 
0 
0 
3 
0 
0 
2 
1 
1 
1 
0 
2 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 

1 
1 

0 

5 
0 
0 
0 
28 

o 

a 
o 

O 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
5 

10 

3 

J§_ 

9 
4 
0 
4 
6 
4 
2 
1 
16 
1 
11 
5 
7 
4 
4 
0 
6 
1 
3 
1 
0 
1 
2 
4 
3 
2 
0 
1 
2 
0 
1 
1 
0 
4 
3 
0 
9 
2 
0 
1 
144 

Harvard  

Chicago  

Wisconsin  

Yale  

Johns  Hopkins  

Illinois  

Mass.  Inst.  .              

Carnegie  Inst  

Columbia  

Stanford  

Dept.  of  Agr.    .  .  . 

Michigan  

Cornell  

Princeton  

Geol.  Survey  

Bur.  of  Standards  

California  

Missouri  

Nebraska  

Bryn  Mawr  

Western  Reserve  

Amer.  Museum,  

N.  Y.  University  

Pennsylvania  

Minnesota  

Brown  ....        ... 

P.  I.  Bur.  of  Sci.    . 

Catholic  

Cincinnati  

Goucher  

Indiana  

Kansas  

North  Carolina  

Northwestern  

Ohio  

Rockefeller  Inst  

Smithsonian  Inst,  

Texas  

Washington  (St.  Louis)  .  . 
Wellesley  

Elsewhere  

Total  

31 

201 

58 

269 

cance  and  deserve  careful  consideration. 
When  we  remember  that  seven  adjacent  states 
have  not  a  single  one  of  these  men  within 
their  borders,  it  is  not  a  small  thing  for  insti- 
tutions such  as  the  University  of  North  Caro- 
lina or  Goucher  College  to  have  two  of  them. 
We  may  well  ask  why  Pennsylvania  should 
compare  so  unfavorably  with  Yale,  or  Minne- 
sota with  Wisconsin. 


Among  the  non-teaching  institutions  there 
is  the  same  direct  correlation  between  the  men 
added  and  dropped.  Institutions  which  have 
a  good  record  in  one  case  have  it  also  in  the 
other.  It  seems  almost  incredible  that  it 
should  be  possible  to  measure  the  efficiency 
with  which  an  institution  is  conducted  by 
such  simple  means,  yet  the  differences  can  not 
be  attributed  to  chance.  The  Carnegie  Insti- 
tution has  the  largest  gains,  though  in  view  of 

TABLE    III.      THE    INSTITUTIONS    FBOM    WHICH    MEN 

GRADUATED  WHO  WERE  ADDED  TO  OB  DROPPED 

FROM    THE    LIST 


Men 
Added. 

Men 
Dropped. 

M 
« 

20 
5 
15 
5 
9 
4 
8 
8 
7 
6 
5 
3 
5 
6 
5 
0 
4 
3 
3 
3 
1 
2 
3 
70 

G 

<s 

27 
27 
13 
22 
12 
14 
4 
2 
2 
2 
2 
4 
1 
0 
0 
4 
0 
1 
0 
0 
2 
1 
0 
7 

'a 
I 

« 
•< 

P 
fi 

3 
1 

47 
32 
28 
27 
21 
18 
12 
10 
9 
8 
7 
7 
6 
6 
5 
4 
4 
4 
3 
3 
3 
3 
3 
77 

17 
0 
5 
2 
7 
8 
2 
6 
3 
0 
2 
0 
2 
0 
3 
0 
1 
4 
6 
1 
3 
3 
0 
79 

4 
1 
2 
17 
5 
8 
1 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 

1 
1 
1 

2 
0 

1 
1 

0 
3 
1 
0 
12 

62 

21 
1 
7 
19 
12 
16 
3 
6 
3 
0 
3 
0 
3 
1 
4 
2 
1 
5 
7 
1 
6 
4 
0 
91 

216 

4 
6 
3 
5 
3 
14 

Chicago    

Yale   

Hopkins  

Cornell              

Columbia  

"Wisconsin  

Michigan      

Minnesota  

California    

Stanford                        

Ohio  State    

Nebraska                  

Clark  

Lehigh    ....        

Princeton              

Indiana  

Pennsylvania  

Syracuse  

Texas   ...                       

Elsewhere  

Total  

200 

147 

347 

154 

Leipzig  

0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
11 

10 
5 
3 
3 
1 
6 

10 
5 
3 
3 
3 
17 

0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
3 

4 
6 
3 
5 
2 
11 

Gottingen  

Berlin  

Heidelberg  

Edinburgh  

Elsewhere  

Total  

13 

28 

41 

4 

31 

35 

251 

149 
2 

402 

Total  

213 
19 
6 

175 
57 
6 

388 
76 
12 

476 

158 
42 
1 

201 

93 

107 
1 

None  

Unknown  

Grand  Total  .  . 

238 

238 

701 

574 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


its  resources  and  exemption  from  inherited 
survivals,  it  does  not  compare  favorably  with 
some  universities.  The  Bureau  of  Standards, 
the  Philippine  Islands  Bureau  of  Science  and 
the  Kockefeller  Institute  have  done  well.  The 
Department  of  Agriculture  has  lost  about 
twice  as  many  men  as  it  has  gained  and  the 
Smithsonian  Institution  with  its  dependent 
bureaus  about  four  times  as  many. 

Table  III.  gives  the  institutions  at  which 
three  or  more  of  the  238  scientific  men  who 
obtained  a  place  on  the  list  of  1910  received 
their  degrees.  The  table  also  gives  data  for 
the  201  men  who  were  dropped  from  the  list. 
Of  232 "  of  the  new  men  whose  education  is 
known,  all  but  19  have  the  bachelor's  degree 
and  all  but  57  the  doctorate  of  philosophy  or 
science.  Some  of  those  who  did  not  receive 
the  bachelor's  degree  were  educated  abroad 
and  have  its  equivalent,  and  many  of  those 
not  holding  the  doctorate  of  philosophy  are 
doctors  of  medicine  or  have  pursued  univer- 
sity studies.  Among  the  1,000  on  the  list  of 
1903,  758  are  known  to  have  received  the 
bachelor's  degree  and  544  the  doctor's  degree. 
The  percentage  of  those  holding  the  bachelor's 
degree  has  increased  from  76  to  92,  and  of 
those  holding  the  doctor's  degree  from  54  to 
75.  Our  educational  methods  are  thus  be- 
coming more  completely  standardized  or  con- 
ventionalized. The  two  men  who  stood  first 
on  the  list  of  1903,  Simon  Newcomb '  and 
William  James,  had  neither  the  regular  col- 
lege nor  the  regular  university  education. 
Whether  this  was  favorable  or  harmful  to 
their  genius  is  unknown;  but  it  is  probable 
that  our  present  educational  methods  do  not 
favor  individuality  and  its  early  expression. 

Harvard  stands  very  clearly  in  the  lead  in 
its  influence.  Of  the  232  men,  20  have  re- 
ceived from  it  their  first  degree  and  27  the 
doctorate  of  philosophy  or  science.  Yale  is 
the  only  university  in  the  same  class  with 
Harvard  as  regards  the  bachelor's  degree,  and 
Chicago  and  the  Johns  Hopkins  are  the  only 
ones  as  regards  the  doctor's  degree.  It  is  a 
curious  fact  that  while  Columbia  and  Yale 
have  conferred  in  the  past  thirteen  years  about 


the  same  number  of  doctorates  in  the  natural 
and  exact  sciences  (189  and  179,  respectively) 
as  have  Chicago,  the  Johns  Hopkins  and  Har- 
vard (245,  220  and  178,  respectively),  each 
can  claim  only  about  half  as  many  of  the  new 
men  who  have  obtained  places  among  the 
thousand.  Pennsylvania  has  the  worst  record 
in  this  respect,  having  conferred  133  doctor- 
ates and  having  only  two  doctors  among  the 
men  added  to  the  list.  The  13  men  who  re- 
ceived the  doctorate  of  philosophy  from  uni- 
versities not  given  on  the  table  received  it 
from  11  different  institutions,  and  the  81 
bachelors  not  accounted  for  on  the  table  re- 
ceived their  degrees  from  no  fewer  than  70 
colleges. 

The  colleges  of  the  state  universities  have 
done  better  than  those  of  the  Atlantic  sea- 
board. Thus  Michigan  and  Wisconsin  have 
each  produced  eight  of  the  bachelors,  while 
Princeton  and  Amherst  have  produced  three, 
Dartmouth  two  and  Williams  one.  In  the 
list  of  1903,  Princeton  and  Amherst  each  had 
23  bachelors  among  758.  The  technical 
schools  of  the  east  have  been  more  productive 
than  the  colleges;  thus  the  Massachusetts  In- 
stitute has  seven  and  Lehigh  four  of  the  new 
men.  Harvard,  Yale  and  Cornell  owe  their 
good  record  to  their  scientific  and  technical 
courses.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  the  eastern 
college  with  "  its  frivolous  amateurism  and 
futile  scholasticism "  exerts  influences  actu- 
ally prejudicial  to  the  scientific  career. 

Leipzig,  Berlin,  Gb'ttingen  and  Heidelberg 
are  the  four  German  universities  which  this 
time  as  last  have  conferred  the  largest  number 
of  degrees.  Among  175  of  the  newer  men  21 
have  received  the  doctorate  of  philosophy  from 
these  four  universities,  whereas  among  544  in 
the  list  of  1903,  112  received  it  from  the  same 
institutions.  In  about  ten  years  the  percent- 
age of  foreign  degrees  has  decreased  to  nearly 
one  half,  and  it  is  in  course  of  further  reduc- 
tion. The  number  of  foreign  men  of  science 
educated  abroad  and  coming  to  this  country 
has,  as  shown  above,  also  decreased.  In  so 
far  as  these  changes  are  due  to  the  improve- 
ment of  our  universities  and  to  the  increase  in 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


575 


the  number  of  native  scientific  men  they  are 
gratifying.  None  the  less  there  is  an  aspect 
of  the  movement  which  is  unpromising.  It  is 
not  desirable  that  we  should  become  more 
provincial  than  we  are. 

The  education  is  known  of  200  of  the  201 
men  who  dropped  from  the  list.  About  25 
per  cent,  of  these  fall  out  through  the  probable 
error  of  arrangement,  but  in  general  they  are 
those  who  have  failed  to  maintain  their  scien- 
tific standing  in  competition  with  their  col- 
leagues. Twenty  per  cent,  of  those  on  the 
list  of  1903  were  dropped  from  it;  of  those  on 
the  list  who  hold  the  bachelor's  degree  21  per 
cent,  were  dropped,  and  of  those  who  hold  the 
doctor's  degree  17  per  cent,  were  dropped. 
Those  holding  the  doctor's  degree  thus  have  a 
small  advantage;  but  this  is  only  because  the 
younger  men  are  more  likely  to  have  the  doc- 
tor's degree  and  at  the  same  time  more  likely 
to  maintain  their  positions. 

Harvard  had  on  the  list  of  1903,  106  of  the 
bachelors  and  57  of  the  doctors.  It  has  now 
made  a  gain  of  trfree  bachelors  and  23  doctors. 
Chicago  has  made  a  notable  gain,  having 
added  five  of  its  bachelors  and  27  of  its  doc- 
tors to  the  list  and  having  lost  but  one  doctor. 
Yale  also  has  a  good  record,  having  increased 
its  bachelors  by  10  and  its  doctors  by  11. 
The  Johns  Hopkins  had  102  doctors  on  the 
previous  list,  nearly  twice  as  many  as  Harvard 
and  four  times  as  many  as  Yale.  It  has  lost 
17  and  added  22,  and  is  thus  still  far  in  ad- 
vance in  the  number  of  leading  scientific  men 
for  whom  it  has  provided  higher  education. 
Cornell  has  gained  two  bachelors  and  seven 
doctors.  Columbia  has  added  four  bachelors 
and  has  lost  twice  as  many;  it  has  added  14 
doctors  and  has  lost  eight;  thus  it  has  gained 
but  two  men  on  the  list.  The  state  universi- 
ties, especially  Wisconsin,  have  good  records. 
Princeton,  Amherst,  Syracuse  and  Pennsyl- 
vania have  lost  more  men  than  they  have 
gained.  The  German  universities  have  done 
well,  having  added  more  men  than  they  have 
lost,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  number  of 
students  studying  in  Germany  has  so  greatly 
decreased.  These  figures  are  in  part  acci- 


dental, but  they  certainly  throw  a  new  light 
on  the  standards  and  efficiency  of  our  uni- 
versities. 

TABLE    IV.      DISTRIBUTION    OF    THE    MEN    ADDED    AC- 
CORDING TO  THEIB  POSITIONS  IN  THE  THOUSAND 
AND   IN   RELATION   TO   THEIB   AGES 


Science. 

£ 

H 

i 

<s  a 

— 

3 

M 

1 

" 

> 

> 

Math  

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

3 
2 

1 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 
0 
0 

i 
i 
i 

0 
0 
3 
2 

1 
0 
1 
0 
0 

1 

3 
3 
1 
1 
2 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 

1 

3 
3 
2 

0 
2 
0 
3 
2 
0 
3 
2 
1 

2 

7 
5 

1 
3 
2 
1 
1 
1 
3 
0 
1 

3 

8 
6 
2 
4 
5 
5 
2 
0 
4 
0 
1 

2 
5 
9 
1 
1 
4 
6 
0 
0 
3 
1 
1 

2 
8 
8 
0 
4 
6 
4 
1 
0 
2 
1 
2 

4 
7 
9 
2 
1 
1 
8 
7 
4 
0 
1 
4 

21 
44 
44 
7 
16 
23 
29 
15 
6 
17 
5 
11 

26.2 
29.3 
25.1 
14.0 
16.0 
23.0 
19.3 
37.5 
24.0 
28.3 
25.0 
22.0 

Physics  

Chem  

Astr  

Geol  

Bot.  

Zool  

Physiol  

Anat  

Path.  . 

Anth  

Psychol.  . 

Number  

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

7 

0 
4 

1 
2 
0 
0 
0 

7 

10 

0 
2 
4 
4 
0 
0 
0 

14 

1 
2 
7 
3 
0 
0 
1 

14 

21 

1 

5 
10 
3 
1 
0 
1 

21 

27 

1 
4 
13 
9 
0 
0 
0 

27 

40 

1 

5 
15 
12 
3 
2 
2 

40 

33 

1 
6 

11 
9 
3 

0 
3 

33 

38 

0 
7 
14 
9 
6 
2 
0 

38 

48 

1 

10 
17 
11 
6 
3 
0 

48 

238 

KS.8 

25-29 
30-34 
35-39 

40-44 
45-49 
50-54 
Not  known 

6 
45 
92 

62 
19 
7 

7 

238 

Number 

10 

Table  IV.  shows  the  distribution  of  the  238 
new  men  among  the  twelve  sciences  in  rela- 
tion to  their  positions  in  the  thousand  and 
the  relation  of  their  ages  to  the  positions. 
The  additions  to  each  science  are  in  the 
neighborhood  of  25  per  cent,  and  the  depar- 
tures from  this  average  are  within  the  limits 
of  chance  variation,  but  only  14  per  cent,  of 
the  astronomers  and  16  per  cent,  of  the  geol- 
ogists are  new,  while  37.5  per  cent,  of  the 
physiologists  are  new.  Astronomy  and  geol- 
ogy are  the  sciences  which  were  the  most  for- 
ward in  the  last  generation,  and  this  would 
lead  us  to  expect  a  smaller  number  of  changes 
apart  from  deaths. 

None  of  the  new  men  attains  a  place  in  the 
first  hundred,  seven  reach  the  second  hundred, 
ten  the  third  and  fourteen  the  fourth.  Those 
who  reach  the  highest  positions  are  in  the 
mathematical  and  exact  sciences;  men  of 
exceptional  ability  advance  more  rapidly  than 


576 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


in  the  natural  and  descriptive  sciences/  Their 
success  probably  depends  more  on  innate 
genius  and  less  on  persistent  work.  There 
are  more  "  prodigies  "  in  mathematics  than  in 
any  other  science,  and  they  are  more  likely  to 
maintain  their  promise.  In  this  and  in  cer- 
tain other  respects  mathematics  is  related  to 
music  and  chess. 

Nearly  all  the  men  obtain  recognition  be- 
tween the  ages  of  30  and  45.  They  do  their 
work  earlier  and  have  their  ideas  still  earlier. 
Those  who  do  not  have  their  ideas  before  they 
are  thirty  are  not  likely  to  have  them,  and 
those  who  do  not  do  good  work  under  forty- 
five  are  not  likely  to  do  it.  Not  a  single  man 
over  fifty-five  has  attained  a  place  on  the  list, 
and  only  one  man  over  forty-five  has  attained 
a  place  as  high  as  the  fifth  hundred.  The 
average  age  of  those  added  to  the  thousand  is 
38.1  years  and  of  those  dropped  from  it  53.6 
years.  The  corresponding  median  ages  are 
37.9  and  50.9  years.  The  writer  knows  a  num- 
ber of  men  who  think  that  they  have  been 
hindered  from  doing  research  work  by  teach- 
ing or  other  distractions  and  intend  to  take 
up  such  work  later,  as  when  they  retire  on  a 
pension,  but  they  will  almost  inevitably  fail. 

While  those  added  to  the  thousand  are  com- 
paratively young,  there  are  only  six  under 
thirty  years  of  age,  and  only  the  same  num- 
ber in  the  complete  list  of  the  thousand 'lead- 
ing scientific  men.  This  is  significant  and  dis- 
quieting. A  man  of  genius  is  likely  to  do  his 
work  at  an  early  age  and  to  receive  prompt 
recognition.  Kelvin  was  appointed  full  pro- 
fessor at  Glasgow  at  22,  Thomson  at  Cam- 
bridge at  26,  Eutherf  ord  at  McGill  at  27.  Men 
of  science  of  this  age  and  rank  simply  do  not 
exist  in  America  at  the  present  time;  nor  is  it 
likely  that  we  are  faring  better  in  scholarship, 
in  literature  and  in  art.  It  will  be  shown 
further  on  that  the  increase  in  the  number  of 
scientific  men  of  standing  is  only  about  one 

*  In  the  complete  list  of  the  thousand  the  young- 
est man  among  the  first  20,  among  the  first  50 
and  among  the  first  100  is  in  each  case  a  mathe- 
matician. 


half  so  large  as  the  increase  in  the  population 
of  the  country. 

It  is  sometimes  urged  that  our  men  of 
genius  are  drawn  into  medicine,  law  and  busi- 
ness owing  to  the  large  financial  rewards  of 
these  pursuits.  Any  one  acquainted  person- 
ally with  some  of  those  who  earn  or  get  the 
largest  money  returns  will  probably  doubt 
whether  they  are  in  fact  men  of  genius  su- 
perior to  our  scientific  men.  The  hundred 
physicians  who  have  the  largest  incomes  se- 
lected from  the  hundred  thousand  physicians 
of  the  country,  and  the  hundred  multi-million- 
aires selected  from  the  million  men  of  busi- 
ness, do  not  obviously  surpass  in  ability  or 
character  the  hundred  leading  scientific  men 
selected  from  five  thousand. 

It  is  indeed  probable  that  the  conditions  ex- 
isting in  this  country  are  paralleled  in  Great 
Britain,  Germany  and  France.  In  no  coun- 
try does  there  seem  to  be  a  group  of  younger 
men  of  genius,  ready  to  fill  the  places  of  the 
great  men  of  the  last  generation.  This  holds 
not,  only  for  science  but  also  for  other  forms 
of  activity.  There  is  no  living  peer  of  Lin- 
coln, Bismarck  or  Cavour.  An  Academy  of 
Letters  is  just  now  being  planned  in  Great 
Britain,  and  its  proposed  membership  is 
trivial  compared  with  what  it  might  have 
been  in  the  middle  of  the  Victorian  era.  It 
may  be  argued  that  we  suffer  from  an  illu- 
sion of  perspective,  that  many  a  newspaper 
writer  is  the  equal  of  the  men  of  letters  of  the 
past,  that  our  young  doctors  of  philosophy 
would  discover  laws  of  motion  if  Newton  had 
not  anticipated  them.  But  it  would  appear  to 
be  a  sufficient  answer  to  write  the  names  of 
Kipling,  Barrie,  Shaw,  Wells  and  Chesterton 
besides  the  names  of  Carlyle,  Kuskin,  Mill, 
Spencer,  Tennyson,  Browning,  George  Eliot, 
Meredith,  Dickens  and  Thackeray,  or  the 
names  of  the  leading  British,  German  or 
French  scientific  men  now  active  with  the 
corresponding  list  for  forty  years  ago. 

It  is  doubtless  in  part  a  question  of  relativ- 
ity. By  the  nature  of  things  there  can  only 
be  a  limited  number  of  famous  men,  and  it  is 
not  fair  to  compare  a  period  of  twenty  years 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


577 


with  the  most  productive  period  of  all  history. 
Both  physical  science  and  biological  science 
have  been  rewritten  within  a  generation,  and 
it  is  possible  that  our  scientific  advance  is 
more  rapid  to-day  than  it  ever  was  before. 
None  the  less  it  is  ominous  for  the  future 
that  there  should  be  only  six  men  of  science  of 
standing  in  the  country  who  are  under  thirty 
years  of  age,  and  that  the  number  of  scien- 
tific men  of  standing  should  increase  more 
slowly  than  the  population. 

There  may  be  a  racial  senescence  such  as 
we  seem  to  find  in  comparing  the  peoples  of 
the  Mediterranean  with  the  Scandinavians 
and  Sclavs,  but  it  would  be  contrary  to  all 
our  biological  knowledge  to  suppose  that  the 
human  stock  could  alter  in  a  generation.  In 
this  period  the  number  of  individuals  who 
have  the  education  opening  the  gates  to  a 
scientific  career  has  at  least  quadrupled.  But 
eminent  men  are  lacking;  and  this  we  must 
attribute  to  changes  in  the  social  environ- 
ment rather  than  to  deterioration  of  the  stock. 

The  progress  of  science  opposes  a  real  bar- 
rier to  its  further  advance.  This  is  not  be- 
cause all  the  great  discoveries  have  been  made. 
The  field  of  science  is  not  a  circumscribed 
territory  which  can  be  completely  explored, 
but  rather  an  area  which  the  larger  it  becomes, 
the  greater  is  the  contact  with  the  unknown 
and  the  more  numerous  and  momentous  are 
the  problems  pressing  for  solution.  But  as 
the  known  country  becomes  larger,  each  ex- 
plorer has  further  to  go  before  he  reaches  the 
undiscovered  regions,  and  as  he  travels  over 
the  well-mapped  land  he  loses  the  strength 
and  vigor  required  for  daring  exploration.  In 
plain  English,  the  young  man  who  must  spend 
his  early  manhood  in  acquiring  knowledge  has 
passed  the  age  at  which  he  is  most  likely  to 
have  new  ideas.  The  inherent  difficulty  we 
exaggerate  by  our  educational  methods.  By 
our  requirements  for  degrees,  by  our  system  of 
examinations,  by  our  insistence  on  irrelevant 
information  and  ridicule  of  desirable  ignor- 
ance and  promising  mistakes,  we  crowd  on 
fat  when  the  athlete  should  be  relieved  of 
every  superfluous  ounce.  The  doctor's  thesis 
38 


is  supposed  to  be  the  first  productive  work; 
it  is  completed  at  the  average  age  of  twenty- 
eight  years  and  is  likely  to  be  the  working 
over  of  the  old  ideas  of  an  old  professor.  In 
t^e  meanwhile  the  creative  instinct  has 
atrophied. 

Racial  senescence^  the  lack  of  emotional 
stimuli  and  the  accumulations  of  knowledge 
will  probably  set  limits  to  the  further  advance 
of  science.  In  the  presence  of  racial  senes- 
cence we  should  be  entirely  helpless,  but  it  is 
possible  that  there  is  no  such  thing.  Twenty 
years  ago  the  Chinese  were  called  a  senile 
race,  but  such  a  statement  could  not  be  justi- 
fied to-day.  In  a  way  our  stock  is  as  young 
as  any,  and  the  germ  plasm  may  increase  as 
much  in  complexity  as  it  has  since  the  amosba. 
Still  a  highly  specialized  organism  is  likely  to 
become  unplastic  and  extinct,  and  apart  from 
physical  exhaustion  of  the  stock  there  is  likely 
to  be  a  social  senescence.  This  is  closely  re- 
lated to  the  lack  of  emotional  stimuli.  Great 
men  and  great  achievements  are  likely  to  be 
associated  with  national  excitement,  with 
wars,  revolutions,  the  rivalry  or  consolidation 
of  states,  the  rise  of  democracy  and  the  like. 
Such  stirring  events  will  probably  disappear 
from  the  world  civilization  of  the  future,  and 
it  may  be  impossible  to  devise  artificial  stim- 
uli adequate  to  arouse  men  from  a  safe  and 
stupid  existence.  But  exactly  because  within 
a  century  the  great  achievements  of  science 
may  belong  to  the  past,  where  the  great  crea- 
tions in  poetry,  art  and  religion  may  perhaps 
now  only  be  found,  it  is  our  business  to  do  the 
best  we  can  to  assure  the  race  of  an  adequate 
endowment  policy. 

It  is  probable  that  we  do  not  attract  to  the 
scientific  career  the  best  possible  men.  There 
is  perhaps  no  harm  in  our  fellowships  and 
underpaid  assistantships,  though  a  subsidized 
theological  education  seems  to  have  drawn  in- 
ferior men  to  the  church.  Those  who  carry 
on  investigation  for  the  benefit  of  society 
should  be  paid  for  their  services  by  society, 
and  the  average  doctor's  thesis  is  worth  at 
least  $500.  We  must  open  the  scientific  career 
to  many  in  order  to  catch  in  our  net  the  few 


578 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


who  count.  But  large  prizes  are  lacking  at 
both  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the  scien- 
tific career.  It  is  too  closely  bound  up  with 
college  teaching  and  routine  administration; 
its  modest  preferments  are  too  often  pur- 
chased by  subservience  rather  than  by  inde- 
pendence, by  neglect  of  research  rather  than 
by  devotion  to  it.  Permanent  tenure  of  office 
so  long  as  no  offense  is  given,  small  advance- 
ments by  the  favor  of  a  superior,  long  vaca- 
tions and  retirement  on  a  pension,  are  not  the 
rewards  to  attract  the  best  men  or  to  lead  men 
to  do  their  best  work. 

The  apprentice  system  in  which  the  be- 
ginner assists  the  expert  is  the  best  educa- 
tional method,  and  if  the  right  spirit  exists  on 
both  sides  it  is  the  method  most  conducive  to 
fruitful  research.  But  the  teaching  of  large 
classes  of  students  having  no  real  interest  in 
the  subject  is  not  favorable  to  investigation. 
It  not  only  takes  the  time  and  strength  of  the 
teacher,  but  to  lecture  continually  "  als  dictirt 
euch  der  heilig'  Geist"  cultivates  an  attitude 
of  superficial  omniscience  subversive  of  both 
the  caution  and  the  daring  which  should  ani- 
mate the  investigator. 

Three  fourths  of  our  leading  scientific  men 
hold  teaching  positions  and  earn  their  livings 
by  teaching.  The  accomplishment  of  research 
work  is  usually  a  factor  in  the  original  ap- 
pointment, and  to  this  extent  investigation  is 
encouraged  in  the  graduate  schools  of  our 
universities.  But  the  reward  offered — usually 
an  instructorship  at  about  $1,000  a  year — is 
small,  and  it  is  not  adjusted  to  discriminate 
between  men  of  possible  genius  and  the  com- 
monplace squatter.  The  appointment  once 
received,  men  are  likely  to  advance  by  a  kind 
of  civil  service  routine,  being  on  the  average 
assistant  professors  with  a  salary  of  $1,800  at 
the  age  of  37  and  full  professors  a  little  later 
at  a  little  higher  salary.  The  small  advances 
in  salary  which  may  thereafter  be  given  have 
but  little  connection  with  successful  research. 
At  the  age  of  sixty-five  the  professor  is  no 
longer  regarded  as  worth  his  salary,  and  is  put 
aside  on  a  pension  at  a  time  of  life  when  men 
in  other  callings  earn  more  than  ever  before. 


The  only  reward  open  to  the  professor  is  the 
presidency  or  some  other  executive  position 
which  takes  him  away  from  research  work. 

Money  is  certainly  not  the  main  thing  in 
the  world,  but  the  desire  for  money  is  by  no 
means  so  materialistic  as  is  commonly  as- 
sumed. The  pursuit  of  wealth  is  an  idealistic 
passion;  it  is  rarely  for  the  gratification  of 
sensual  pleasures  and  usually  at  the  sacrifice 
of  these.  It  is  closely  associated  with  the 
family — the  creation  of  a  home,  the  education 
of  children,  their  establishment  in  life,  the 
transmission  of  family  sanctions  and  tradi- 
tions. The  pursuit  of  fame  or  reputation  ia 
usually  far  more  selfish.  It  is  further  the  case 
that  we  measure  performance  in  terms  of  money. 
In  each  career  those  who  do  the  best  work  are 
likely  to  receive  the  largest  money  rewards. 
These  are  consequently  not  only  desirable  as 
improving  the  conditions  of  living  and  of  the 
family,  in  giving  security  for  the  future  and 
in  providing  facilities  for  further  work,  but 
they  are  also  ideal  symbols  of  useful  service. 
If  the  university  president  receives  three  times 
the  salary  of  the  professor  and  the  professor's 
salary  depends  on  the  president's  favor,  the 
office  of  the  professor  is  degraded.  If  the 
scientific  man  in  the  government  service  re- 
ceives the  salary  of  a  clerk  and  is  subject  to 
the  orders  of  a  superior,  he  will  be  treated 
like  a  clerk  and  in  the  end  will  deserve  no 
better  treatment.  As  the  writer  has  said:" 
"  Professors  and  scholars  are  not  sufficiently 
free  or  sufficiently  well  paid,  so  there  is  a 
lack  of  men  who  deserve  to  be  highly  re- 
warded, and  we  are  in  danger  of  sliding  down 
the  lines  of  a  vicious  spiral,  until  we  reach  the 
stage  where  the  professor  and  his  scholarship 
are  not  respected  because  they  are  not  re- 
spectable." 

University  professors  and  scientific  men 
doubtless  belong  to  the  privileged  classes.  If 
their  salaries  are  too  small  in  comparison  with 
the  incomes  of  the  classes,  they  are  ample  in 
comparison  with  the  wages  of  the  masses. 
But  the  salaries  and  rewards  are  not  adjusted 

8 "  The  Case  of  Harvard  College,"  The  Popular 
Science  Monthly,  76:  604-614,  June,  1910. 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


579 


to  performance.  In  Germany  the  docents 
in  the  universities  have  had  a  meager  support, 
but  the  professorship  has  been  maintained  as 
a  high  office.  Promotion  to  it  has  not  as  a 
rule  accrued  through  favor,  through  length  of 
service,  or  even  through  personal  presenta- 
bility  or  skill  in  teaching,  but  as  a  reward  for 
research  work  in  which  a  man  is  judged  by 
his  peers.  To  this  method  of  university  ad- 
ministration must  in  large  measure  be  at- 
tributed the  primacy  of  Germany  in  research 
during  the  past  century.  In  Great  Britain 
and  in  France  also  the  exceptional  man  has 
received  exceptional  honors. 

In  this  democracy  we  face  conditions  into 
which  the  other  nations  are  likely  to  follow  us. 
Geheimrats,  knights  and  academicians  may 
become  no  more  reputable  than  our  LL.D's. 
As  scientific  men  increase  in  numbers  and 
their  work  becomes  more  highly  specialized, 
it  becomes  more  and  more  difficult  to  use  fame 
and  social  distinction  as  rewards.  The  most 
plausible  expedient  would  appear  to  be  the 
establishment  of  research  positions  in  our 
universities,  in  our  endowed  institutions  and 
in  the  government  service,  better  paid  and 
more  free  than  any  now  existing.  By  the  will 
of  Senator  Vilas,  the  University  of  Wisconsin 
will  have  ten  professorships  with  salaries  of 
$10,000  and  freedom  from  routine  teaching. 
If  each  large  university  has  such  a  scheme,  the 
vacancies  being  filled  by  the  professors  and 
the  position  and  salary  being  for  life,  a  com- 
paratively small  expenditure  would  go  far 
toward  attracting  exceptional  men  to  the 
academic  and  scientific  career  and  stimulating 
them  to  do  exceptional  work. 

The  difficulty  confronting  us  is  that  our 
competitive  system  of  payment  does  not  apply 
to  services  rendered  to  society.  The  physi- 
cian must  promote  health,  the  lawyer  prevent 
litigation  and  the  editor  conserve  decency  at 
their  own  cost  and  to  their  own  cost.  The 
scientific  man  is  not  directly  paid  for  his  re- 
search work;  he  often  has  difficulty  to  find  a 
charity  that  will  publish  it.  The  man  of  let- 
ters was  formerly  dependent  on  a  patron,  but 
thanks  to  the  printing  press,  the  increase  of 


the  reading  public  and  the  copyright  laws,  his 
condition  has  improved.  The  patent  office  has 
been  of  assistance  to  discovery;  its  scope 
should  be  extended  to  cover,  for  example,  the 
production  of  new  varieties  of  plants  and  ani- 
mals, and,  if  possible,  the  production  of  new 
kinds  of  ideas.  But  methods  should  be  de- 
vised by  which  scientific  work  will  be  rewarded 
in  some  direct  proportion  to  its  value  to  so- 
ciety— and  this  not  in  the  interest  of  the  in- 
vestigator, but  in  the  interest  of  society. 

At  the  same  time  we  must  remember  that 
human  nature  is  extremely  complicated  and 
imperfectly  understood.  The  fine  flower  of 
genius  may  wither  in  the  sunshine  more 
quickly  than  in  the  shade.  Children  are  loved 
and  cherished  in  direct  proportion  to  the  sac- 
rifices made  for  them.  There  is  a  subtle  dis- 
tinction between  play  and  work.  It  might 
happen  that  the  joy  of  creation  in  art  and 
science  would  be  crushed  by  professionalism. 
The  dominant  motives  of  conduct  vary  from 
age  to  age,  from  land  to  land,  from  group  to 
group,  from  individual  to  individual.  But  in 
spite  of  our  ignorance  of  the  causes  of  conduct 
we  may  have  some  confidence  that  among  the 
restless  nations  of  the  west,  poverty,  celibacy, 
obedience  and  obscurity  are  exotic  ideals  which 
can  not  be  used  to  make  the  scientific  career 
attractive. 

In  addition  to  the  269  men  added  to  the 
thousand,  whose  origin,  education,  distribu- 
tion, ages  and  standing  have  been  considered, 
there  were  731  men  on  the  list  of  1903  who 
retaine'd  places  on  the  list  of  1910.  Some  of 
them  maintained  about  the  same  places  as 
before,  some  improved  their  positions  and 
some  dropped  down  to  lower  places  on  the 
list.  The  number  of  places  that  each  indi- 
vidual moved  up  or  down  is  known.  A  gain 
or  loss  of  a  hundred  places  at  the  bottom  of 
the  list  would  not  be  significant,  as  the  prob- 
able error  of  the  change  would  be  about  100 
X  V2-  A  gain  of  a  hundred  places  at  the 
top  of  the  list,  where  the  probable  error  is 
under  twenty  places,  would  represent  a  certain 
and  important  advance  in  the  estimation  in 


580 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


which  the  work  of  the  individual  is  held.  The 
value  of  gains  or  losses  in  different  points  in 
the  series  is  inversely  as  the  probable  error 
corrected  by  the  range,  and  it  is  thus  possible 
to  represent  the  gains  or  losses  of  individuals 
wherever  they  occur  in  comparable  figures. 
If  a  gain  of  one  place  in  the  last  five  hundred 
is  taken  as  the  unit,  a  gain  of  one  place  in  the 
upper  hundreds  would  be  approximately  as 
follows:  V.  =  1.5;  IV.  =  2;  III.  =  3;  II.  =  6, 
and  I.  =  10.  Dividing  further  the  first  hun- 
dred, a  gain  in  the  lower  fifty  equals  8,  and 
gains  in  the  two  upper  twenty-fives,  respect- 
ively, equal  10  and  14.  On  such  a  scale  the 
gain  or  loss  of  each  individual  has  been  as- 
signed. It  is  a  truly  dramatic  figure  express- 
ing with  almost  brutal  conciseness  the  efforts, 
the  successes  and  the  failures  of  seven  years 
of  a  man's  life. 

The  gains  and  losses  of  those  on  the  list  of 
1903,  apart  from  the  68  who  died  or  removed 
from  the  country,  are  shown  in  the  accom- 
panying curve: 


FIG.  l. 

It  is  a  tolerably  symmetric  surface  of  dis- 
tribution, in  view  of  the  limited  number  of 
cases  and  the  complicated  conditions.  357 
men  improved  their  positions  and  575  lost 
ground,  of  which  latter  201  dropped  out  of  the 
thousand.  The  average  loss  was  113  places, 
these  being  places  in  the  lower  five  hundred, 
equal  to  one  tenth  as  many  places  in  the  first 
hundred.  Apart  from  this  average  change  in 
one  direction,  or  constant  error,  there  was  an 
average  change  of  position,  or  variable  error, 
which  referred  to  the  age  groups  in  305  places. 
This  variable  error  is  due  to  two  factors — the 
chance  error  of  arrangement  (say  141)  and 
the  real  change  in  the  position  of  the  men — 


and  is  equal  to  the  square  root  of  the  sum  of 
their  squares.  The  real  variable  error  is  con- 
sequently 270.  Men  on  the  list  thus  lost  on 
the  average  113  places,  and  from  this  average 
there  was  a  loss  or  gain  of  position,  which  on 
the  average  amounted  to  270  places. 

The  removals  from  the  list  would  tend  to 
give  higher  positions  to  those  remaining  on  it. 
If  the  68  removals  were  equally  distributed 
over  the  list,  they  would  allow  on  the  average 
an  advance  of  34  places  to  each  man,  or, 
weighting  the  places,  an  advance  of  73  places 
of  the  value  of  those  in  the  lower  five  hundred. 
Instead  of  such  an  advance,  there  was  an 
average  loss  of  113  places  and  consequently  a 
total  average  loss  of  186  places.  With  a  gross 
variable  error  of  305  places  there  might  be 
expected  to  be  dropped  from  the  list  about  155 
men,  apart  from  any  negative  constant  error 
or  any  positive  advance  due  to  the  deaths. 

In  a  stationary  scientific  population  it 
might  be  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  losses 
by  death  would  be  filled  by  those  below  the 
thousand  and  that  those  in  the  thousand  would 
maintain  the  same  or  an  improved  average 
position,  while  only  so  many  would  be  dropped 
from  the  thousand  as  are  accounted  for  by  the 
variable  error.  In  an  increasing  scientific 
population,  however,  the  standard  of  the  thou- 
sand would  become  higher.  If  there  were  an 
increase  of  ten  per  cent,  in  the  number  of 
scientific  men  in  the  course  of  seven  years, 
then  there  should  be  110  of  the  same  rank  as 
the  first  hundred  in  the  thousand  of  1903  and 
1,100  of  the  same  rank  as  the  thousand.  A 
man  in  the  lower  part  of  the  list  who  main- 
tained his  absolute  position  would  lose  nearly 
a  hundred  places  in  relative  position,  and, 
apart  from  the  variable  error  of  position,  91 
of  those  in  the  thousand  would  drop  to  the 
eleventh  hundred.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the 
average  loss  in  position  was  113  places,  and 
the  number  dropped  from  the  list  was  46  in 
excess  of  those  accounted  for  by  the  variable 
error.  According  to  this  argument,  the  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  scientific  men  of 
standing  in  seven  years  would  be  from  5  to 
11  per  cent.,  or  about  one  half  the  increase  of 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


581 


the  population.  There  has  certainly  been  no 
increase  in  the  number  of  scientific  men  of 
standing  commensurate  with  the  increase  in 
the  instructors,  students  and  endowments  of 
our  universities,  with  the  larger  appropriations 
for  scientific  work  under  the  government,  or 
with  the  new  foundations  for  research. 


improve  their  positions,  while  the  older  men 
are  likely  to  fall  back.  The  nine  men  now 
under  thirty-five  have,  on  the  average,  gained 
364  places  and  the  77  now  between  thirty-five 
and  thirty-nine  have,  on  the  average,  gained 
144  places.  Of  those  under  forty,  54  gained 
and  32  lost.  In  the  next  five-year  period  men 


TABLE   V.      GAINS    AND   LOSSES    IN   BEFKBENCE   TO    POSITION   AND   TO   AGE 


Position. 

1-100. 

101-200. 

201-300. 

301-400. 

401-500. 

501-600. 

601-700. 

701-800. 

801-900. 

901-1000 

Totl. 

Number  

90 

91 

95 

92 

91 

92 

97 

93 

94 

97 

_ 

932 

No.  gained  

44 

40 

37 

34 

35 

28 

40 

31 

26 

42 

_ 

357 

No.  lost  

46 

51 

58 

58 

56 

64 

57 

62 

68 

55 

__ 

575 

Constant  error  

-53.3 

-93.9 

-99.4 

-64.5 

-115.8 

-160.8 

-95.3 

-165.0 

-182.9 

-89.1 

Age. 

30-34. 

35-39. 

40-44. 

45-49. 

50-54. 

55-59. 

60-64. 

65-69. 

70-74. 

75-85. 

*£ 

*W 

"rt 
I 

Total  number  

9 

77 

187 

194 

155 

104 

85 

52 

38 

24 

7 

932 

No.  gained  

6 

48 

94 

79 

60 

23 

17 

14 

11 

1 

4 

357 

No.  lost  

3 

29 

93 

115 

95 

81 

68 

38 

27 

23 

8 

575 

Constant  error  

+364 

+  144 

+29 

-103 

-134 

-276 

-268 

-262 

-227 

-438 

Variable  error  

485 

328 

see 

284 

SOS 

285 

252 

299 

258 

185 

Table  V.  gives  the  gains  and  losses  of  the 
thousand  scientific  men  of  the  list  of  1903 
(apart  from  the  68  who  died  or  removed  from 
the  country)  in  reference  to  their  standing 
and  their  present  ages.  It  thus  appears  that 
in  each  hundred  of  the  thousand  the  men  were 
more  likely  to  lose  in  position  than  to  gain, 
but  that  those  in  the  first  hundred  lost  the 
least  and  those  in  the  upper  hundreds  lost  less 
than  the  average.  Of  those  in  the  first  hun- 
dred 44  gained  in  position  and  46  lost,  the 
average  loss  being  53  places.  They  were  not 
subject  to  the  competition  of  an  increasing 
population,  and  only  seven  men  not  on  the  list 
of  1903  attained  places  among  the  second 
hundred.  It  thus  appears  that  even  men  of 
established  reputation  do  not  maintain  their 
positions,  they  do  not  advance  as  they  grow 
older,  and  death  removes  more  eminent  men 
whose  places  they  might  fill.  The  losses  tend 
to  increase  as  the  men  are  of  lower  rank,  but 
the  differences  are  not  considerable.  The 
variable  error  being  305  places,  the  probable 
error  of  the  figures  given  in  the  table  is  rather 
large. 

In  the  case  of  age  it  is  clear  that  the 
younger  men  in  the  thousand  are  likely  to 


are  about  as  likely  to  lose  as  to  gain,  whereas 
older  men  are  likely  to  lose.  There  appears 
to  be  a  plateau  between  the  ages  of  those  now 
between  fifty -five  and  seventy-four;  in  the 
course  of  the  seven  preceding  years  they  have 
about  the  same  record.  They  tend  to  lose 
about  250  places  or  about  twice  the  average 
of  all  the  men  on  the  list.  The  24  men  who 
seven  years  ago  were  sixty-eight  years  of  age 
or  older  have  nearly  all  lost  in  position.  It  is 
not  likely  that  any  one  of  them  has  done  any- 
thing to  lower  his  scientific  reputation;  but 
men  of  the  younger  generation  have  accom- 
plished work  of  greater  importance,  or  the- 
work  of  older  men  is  forgotten  because  it  is- 
less  contemporary.  It  thus  appears  that 
under  existing  conditions  in  this  country, 
scientific  men  are  likely  in  the  course  of  seven 
years  to  lose  about  100  places.  Men  who  have 
obtained  recognition  among  the  thousand  are 
likely  to  gain  if  under  forty;  if  between  forty 
and  fifty  they  are  likely  to  lose,  and  if  over 
fifty-five  they  are  likely  to  lose  more  than  the 
average.5" 

•*  The  coefficient  of  correlation  between  age  and 
gain  in  position  is  —  31.7.  It  is,  however,  doubt- 
ful whether  the  Galton-Pearson  method  can  be 
used  to  advantage  in  such  cases. 


582 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


The  average  age  of  the  thousand  scientific 
men  on  the  list  of  1910  is  48.12  years.  The 
age  distribution  is  as  follows: 

Age  Number 

25-29    6 

30-34    54 

35-39    155 

40-44    214 

45-49    176 

50-54    137 

55-59    82 

60-64    68 

65-69    40 

70-74    33 

75-79    13 

80-84    7 

Unknown    15 

In  Table  VI.  is  given  the  average  age  of  the 
men  in  the  ten  groups  of  one  hundred  making 
up  the  thousand  f  jr  the  lists  of  1903  and  1910.' 
The  probable  errors  of  the  averages  are  less 
than  one  year.  It  thus  appears  that  the  more 
eminent  scientific  men  are  likely  to  be  older; 


TABLE    VI. 


AVEBAGE    AGE    ACCOBDING    TO    POSITION 
IN    1903    AND    1910 


Average  Age. 

Average  Age. 

1903. 

1910. 

54.78 
48.94 
48.34 
48,62 
48.50 

1903. 

1910. 

I. 
II. 
III. 

IV. 
V. 

50.12 
49.76 
47.04 
45.38 
44.09 

VI. 
VII. 
VIII. 
IX. 
X. 

43.70 
41.97 
42.36 
43.50 
42.32 

46.40 
.45.60 
47.82 
45,94 
46.14 

Average 

45.02 

48.11 

but  the  differences  are  small  apart  from  the 
first  hundred,  who  in  1903  were  5.1  years  older 
than  the  average,  and  in  1910  6.7  years  older. 
Scientific  men  do  not  become  more  eminent 
as  they  grow  older  unless  they  have  obtained 
a  good  position  at  a  comparatively  early  age. 

The  men  on  the  list  of  1910  are,  on  the 
average,  three  years  older  than  those  on  the 
list  of  1903.  An  increase  in  age  would  be 
expected,  as  we  have  to  do  with  a  youthful 

*  The  list  for  1903  used  for  ages  consisted  of 
the  1,000  scientific  men  who  stood  first  before  the 
adjustments  had  been  made  to  secure  a  fixed 
number  in  each  science. 


and  increasing  scientific  population.  Some 
part  of  the  increase  in  age  is  probably  caused 
by  the  long  period  of  education  now  likely  to 
precede  productive  scientific  work,  but  it  is 
not  easy  to  analyze  the  factors.  In  so  far  as 
the  increased  age  is  due  to  higher  standards 
through  increasing  competition,  it  is  gratify- 
ing ;  in  so  far  as  it  is  due  to  the  postponement 
of  scientific  productivity,  it  is  unfortunate. 

For  the  list  of  1903  data  have  been  compiled 
in  regard  to  the  ages  at  which  academic  de- 
grees were  received.  The  average  age  at 
which  758  men  received  the  bachelor's  degree 
was  22.2  years,  and  the  average  age  at  which 
544  men  received  the  doctorate  of  philosophy 
or  science  was  28.4  years.  The  corresponding 
median  ages  were  21.8  and  26.9  years.  Table 
VII.  shows  the  details  in  reference  to  the  dif- 
ferent sciences  and  the  ten  groups  of  a  hun- 
dred composing  the  thousand.  The  age  differ- 
ences are  small,  but  men  have  received  the 

TABLE    VII.      AGES    AT   WHICH   THE   BACHELOB'S    DE- 

GBEE  AND  THE  DOCTOBATE  OF  PHILOSOPHY  WEBE 

BECEIVED   ACCOBDING  TO   SCIENCE   AND   TO 

POSITION   IN   THE  THOUSAND 


Bachelor. 

Ph.  D. 

No. 

Age. 

No. 

64 
87 
114 
14 
43 
56 
96 
19 
2 
6  , 
6 
37 

Age. 

Mathematics  

67 
112 
132 
34 
85 
83 
117 
29 
15 
30 
8 
46 

21.9 
22.1 
21.6 
21.6 
22.8 
23.7 
22.6 
21.7 
23.7 
20.7 
22.0 
21.7 

28.4 
28.6 
26.7 
29.3 
28.5 
30.5 
28.8 
26.7 
30.5 
27.2 
27.5 
27.6 

Physics                    

Chemistry  

Astronomy  

Geology  

Botany  

Zoology  

Physiology  

Anatomy  

Pathology  

Anthropology  

Psychology  

No.  or  average  

758 

22.2 

21.6 
21.9 
22.3 
22.2 
22.2 
22.0 
22.4 
22.2 
22.8 
22.8 

544 

28.4 

26.9 
27.3 
27.7 
27.5 
28.2 
29.3 
28.6 
28.8 
29.3 
29.1 

I  

74 
77 
80 
74 
74 
74 
79 
76 
74 
76 

57 
52 
56 
52 
53 
63 
52 
58 
49 
52 

II  

Ill  

IV  

V  

VI  

VII  

VIII  

IX  

X  

No.  or  averaee  .  . 

758 

22.2 

544 

28.4 

AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


583 


bachelor's  degree  at  an  earlier  age  who  have 
become  pathologists  than  those  who  have  be- 
come anatomists  or  botanists.  The  chemists 
have  received  the  doctor's  degree  at  the  earli- 
est age  and  the  anatomists  and  botanists  at 
the  latest.  The  mathematicians  have  received 
the  doctorate  at  exactly  the  average  age,  not 
earlier,  as  the  writer  would  have  anticipated. 
In  the  different  sciences  there  are  decided 
differences  in  the  proportion  of  those  who 
have  received  academic  degrees.  Only  half 
the  pathologists  have  the  bachelor's  degree  and 
one  twelfth  the  doctorate  of  philosophy,  their 


men  the  earlier  the  age.  Those  in  the  first 
hundred  have  received  both  the  bachelor's  and 
the  doctor's  degree  at  the  earliest  age,  the 
former  0.6  and  the  latter  1.5  years  below  the 
average.  The  second  hundred  are  the  next 
youngest,  the  ages  for  the  two  degrees  being 
0.3  and  1.1  below  the  average.  Those  in  the 
lower  two  hundred  were  0.6  year  older  than 
the  average  in  receiving  the  first  degree  and 
0.8  year  older  in  the  case  of  the  second  de- 
gree. There  is  no  correlation  between  stand- 
ing and  the  possession  of  one  or  the  other  of 
the  degrees. 


TABLE  VIII.      OCCUPATION  OF  THE  THOUSAND  MEN  OF  SCIENCE  ACCORDING  TO  SCIENCE  AND  TO  POSITION 


Teaching. 

Government 
Work. 

Applied 
Science. 

Research 
Institutions. 

Museums  and 
Academies. 

Botanical  and 
Zoological 
Gardens. 

Amateurs. 

State  Work. 

Physicians. 

Architects. 

Artists. 

Editors. 

Missionaries. 

Mathematics  

77 

1 

1' 

1 

80 

Physics  

104 

18 

6 

150 

Chemistry  

126.5 

12 

9^ 

8.5 

175 

Astronomy  

38 

5 

4 

3 

60 

Geology  

52.5 

30.5 

g 

1 

2 

1 

5 

100 

Botany  

66 

12 

6 

2.5 

12.5 

1 

100 

Zoology  

112.5 

14 

3 

15.5 

1 

2 

1 

1 

150 

Physiology  

37 

1 

2 

40 

Anatomy  

21 

2 

1 

1 

25 

Pathology  

51 

4 

3 

9 

60 

Anthropology  

7.5 

8 

3  5 

1 

20 

Psychology  

45.5 

0.5 

1 

1 

50 

738.5 

106 

59 

35.5 

24.5 

13.5 

11 

5 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1000 

1-  100  

79 

7 

1 

6 

3 

2 

9 

• 

? 

? 

. 

• 

I 

100 

101-  200  

78 

12 

2 

4 

1 

1 

100 

201-  300  

80.5 

12 

3 

2 

1.5 

100 

301-  400  

67 

18 

8 

1 

2 

3 

100 

401-  500  

69 

11 

5 

4 

4 

2 

1 

100 

601-  600  

78 

9 

7 

2 

3 

100 

601-  700  

67.5 

11 

6 

8 

3 

2.5 

2 

100 

701-  800  

72 

12 

q 

3 

3 

100 

801-  900  

69.5 

6 

11 

4.5 

3 

1 

4 

100 

901-1000  

78 

8 

8 

3 

2 

1 

100 

738.5 

106 

59 

35.5 

24.5 

13.5 

11 

1000 

education  having  been  in  the  medical  school. 
Of  50  psychologists  46  hold  the  bachelor's  and 
37  the  doctor's  degree.  The  doctor's  degree  is 
held  by  nearly  two  thirds  of  the  zoologists, 
while  it  is  held  by  less  than  half  the  geologists 
and  less  than  a  third  of  the  astronomers. 

There  is  a  small  but  definite  correlation  be- 
tween standing  and  the  age  at  which  the  men 
received  their  degrees — the  more  eminent  the 


Our  thousand  leading  men  of  science  are 
occupied  as  shown  in  Table  VIII.  738. 5T  are 
engaged  in  teaching,  or  have  been  so  engaged, 
and  now  fill  administrative  educational  posi- 
tions or  have  retired  from  active  service. 
Nearly  three  quarters  of  our  scientific  men 

*  The  decimal  here  and  elsewhere  refers  to  a 
man  who  gives  part  of  his  time  to  teaching  or  to 
the  institution  to  which  he  is  credited. 


584 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF   SCIENCE 


earn  their  livings  by  teaching,  and  a  large 
proportion  of  the  others  have  done  so.  In  this 
country,  as  in  Germany,  the  advancement  of 
science  depends  mainly  on  those  who  hold 
chairs  in  our  colleges  and  universities.  Some 
ten  per  cent,  of  our  scientific  men  are  engaged 
in  work  for  the  government,  among  whom  the 
geologists  predominate.  Only  six  per  cent, 
earn  their  livings  by  direct  applications  of 
science.  Apart  from  one  actuary,  this  work  is 
in  applied  chemistry,  engineering  and  mining. 
There  is  no  one  who  earns  his  living  by  appli- 
cations of  the  natural  sciences.  Research  in- 
stitutions, nearly  all  of  recent  foundation, 
employ  35  men.  There  are  24  connected  with 
museums,  academies  and  libraries  and  12  with 
botanical  gardens.  Only  eleven  among  the 
thousand  may  be  classed  as  amateurs,  and 
these  include  several  married  women  who 
should  perhaps  be  given  a  separate  place. 
This  contrasts  with  Great  Britain,  where  Dar- 
win, Huggins,  Rayleigh  and  many  other  great 
scientific  men,  not  needing  to  earn  their  liv- 
ings, have  devoted  their  lives  to  scientific  re- 
search. Only  three  physicians  not  connected 
with  medical  schools  have  done  scientific  work 
of  consequence.  One  architect,  one  artist,  one 
editor  and  one  missionary  appear  on  the  list, 
but  no  lawyer  or  man  of  business.  It  seems 
that  in  this  country  the  time  has  gone  by 
when  science  can  be  advanced  by  any  except 
by  those  engaged  in  certain  definite  profes- 
sions, while  these  professions  require  men, 
with  a  few  exceptions,  to  earn  their  livings  by 
teaching  or  by  applied  science. 

The  standing  of  those  in  the  different  pro- 
fessions does  not  show  a  considerable  differ- 
ence. There  are  in  the  upper  three  hundred 
relatively  more  men  engaged  in  teaching  and 
in  the  research  institutions,  and  fewer  in  ap- 
plied science,  but  the  differences  are  scarcely 
significant,  except  that  those  engaged  in  ap- 
plied science  are  of  somewhat  lower  standing. 
Those  in  the  government  service  and  the  offi- 
cers and  curators  of  museums  and  botanical 
gardens  are  of  average  standing. 

There  were  19  women  on  the  list  of  1903. 
None  of  them  died  but  seven  were  not  placed 


on  the  list  of  1910.  This  is  a  somewhat  larger 
proportion  than  in  the  case  of  the  men,  but  the 
figures  are  too  small  to  have  significance.  Six 
women  found  a  place  for  the  first  time  on  the 
list  of  1910,  the  highest  being  in  the  fifth  hun- 
dred. It  thus  appears  that  women  have  not 
improved  their  position  in  science  in  the 
course  of  seven  years,  and  it  is  not  an  impor- 
tant one,  only  18  women  among  982  men,  with 
none  in  the  first  hundred,  two  in  the  second, 
two  in  the  third  and  three  in  the  fourth. 
There  are  now  nearly  as  many  women  as  men 
who  receive  a  college  degree;  they  have  on  the 
average  more  leisure;  there  are  four  times  as 
many  women  as  men  engaged  in  teaching. 
There  does  not  appear  to  be  any  social  preju- 
dice against  women  engaging  in  scientific 
work,  and  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  conclusion 
that  there  is  an  innate  sexual  disqualification. 
Women  seem  not  to  have  done  appreciably 
better  in  this  country  than  in  other  countries 
and  periods  in  which  their  failure  might  be 
attributed  to  lack  of  opportunity.  But  it  is 
possible  that  the  lack  of  encouragement  and 
sympathy  is  greater  than  appears  on  the  sur- 
face, and  that  in  the  future  women  may  be 
able  to  do  their  share  for  the  advancement  of 
science. 

Table  IX.  gives  the  distribution  on  January 
1,  1910,  of  the  thousand  leading  scientific  men 
of  the  country  and  the  gain  or  loss  of  each 
state  in  a  period  of  about  four  years.  The 
distribution  of  the  second  thousand  is  also 
shown.  In  respect  to  the  first  thousand,  the 
main  facts  have  already  been  considered  in 
connection  with  the  men  who  have  acquired 
or  lost  places  in  the  group.  This  table  shows 
in  addition  the  changes  which  have  occurred 
as  the  result  of  men  removing  from  one  state 
to  another  who  have  retained  their  places  on 
the  list.  Massachusetts,  as  has  been  noted, 
gained  14  men  owing  to  the  fact  that  43  of 
the  new  men  reside  in  that  state,  while  but 
29  were  lost  to  it  through  death  or  through 
dropping  below  the  standard.  In  addition  it 
has  gained  seven  men,  the  excess  of  those 
having  places  on  both  lists  who  have  moved 
into  the  state  above  those  who  have  left  it. 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


585 


TABLE    IX. 


DISTBIBUTION   OF   THE   FIBST   AND 
SECOND   THOUSANDS 


First  Thousand. 

Second 
Thousand. 

6 
fc 

tH 
«• 

2  o 

5^ 

o 
_o 

i| 
£ 

o 

fc 

a 

0 

§s 

So 

« 
gj 

North  Atlantic. 
Maine  

3 
8 
1 
165 
9 
50 
183 
26 
60 

0 
39 

109 
10 
2 
7 
0 
0 
0 

0 

1 

2 
0 
4 
4 
0 
0 

34 
11 
77 
25 
36 
13 
6 
24 
1 
1 
5 
6 

0 
0 
9 
0 
4 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
50 
2 
0 

-  i 

0 

-  i 

+21 
+  1 
+  7 
-  9 
-  9 
-  5 

-  1 
-  8 
-10 
0 
-  1 
+  1 
0 

-  1 

0 

-  3 
-  2 
0 
0 
+  3 
-  3 
0 
0 

0 

-  1 
+14 
-  2 
+13 
0 

—      1 

+  3 
-  1 

—      1 

0 
-  3 

-  2 
-   1 
+  1 
-  2 
+  2 
0 
0 
0 
0 

+  1 

-  3 
+  2 
0 

14.3 
19.4 
2.9 
58.7 
20.9 
55.0 
251 
13.2 
9.5 

0 
32.8 
391.0 
5.4 
2.0 
3.7 
0 
0 
0 

0 
0.5 
1.1 
0 
2.9 
1.3 
0 
0 

8.2 
4.4 
15.9 
10.3 
17.4 
7.4 
2.7 
7.7 
3.1 
2.4 
3.4 
5.6 

0 
0 
16.6 
0 
34.2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2.4 
33.6 
12.9 

5 
8 
6 
103 
11 
32 
166 
29 
69 

4 
30 
111 
14 
3 
7 
3 
1 
3 

5 
8 
2 
1 
1 
10 
2 
1 

39 
21 
87 
31 
14 
20 
15 
19 
4 
2 
14 
11 

3 
1 
13 
1 
2 
5 
1 
2 
6 
1 
38 
1 
1 

7.2 
19.4 
17.4 
36.7 
25.7 
35.2 
22.8 
15.3 
10.9 

21.7 
25.2 
399.2 
7.5 
3.1 
3.7 
2.2 
0.4 
5.7 

2.3 
3.9 
1.1 
0.7 
0.7 
3.2 
5.0 
0.7 

9.3 
8.3 
18.0 
12.8 
6.7 
11.4 
6.7 
6.1 
12.5 
4.9 
9.5 
10.3 

12.3 
10.9 
24.1 
5.1 
16*.4 
18.1 
21.4 
12.4 
11.6 
2.4 
25.6 
6.5 

New  Hampshire 
Vermont  

Massachusetts  

Rhode  Island  

Connecticut  

New  York  

New  Jersey  

Pennsylvania  

South  Atlantic. 
Delaware  

Maryland  

Dist.  of  Columbia  .... 
Virginia  

West  Virginia  

North  Carolina  

South  Carolina  

Georgia  

Florida  

South  Central. 
Kentucky  

Tennessee  

Alabama  

Mississippi  

Louisiana  

Texas  

Oklahoma  

Arkansas  

North  Central. 
Ohio  

Indiana  

Illinois  

Michigan  

Wisconsin  

Minnesota  

Iowa  . 

Missouri  

North  Dakota  

South  Dakota  

Kansas  ....            .    . 

Nebraska  

Western. 
Montana  

Wyoming  .    . 

Colorado  

New  Mexico  

Arizona  

Utah  

Nevada  

Idaho  

Washington  

Oregon  

California  

Hawaii  

Porto  Rico  

First  Thousand. 

Second 
Thousand. 

A 

OB 

fl  o 

'MM 

O 

Per  Million 
1900. 

6 
fe 

Per  Million 
1900. 

Panama  

i 

4 
1 
0 
1 
1 
2 

0 
1 
0 
1 
.0 

+  1 
+  1 
-  1 

0 
0 
0 

+  2 
0 

+  1 

0 

+  1 

0 

— 

0 
8 
0 
1 

0 
0 
2 
0 
1 
0 
1 

— 

Philippines  

Canada  

Mexico  

Cuba  

Brazil  

Argentine  

Peru  

France  

Germany  

Switzerland  

Turkey  

Number  

1000 

1000 

Its  total  gain  in  scientific  men  of  standing  is 
consequently  21,  and  it  has  58.7  of  these  scien- 
tific men  per  million  of  its  population  accord- 
ing to  the  census  of  1900,  as  compared  with 
51.3  about  four  years  ago.  The  increase  in 
the  number  of  scientific  men  is  nearly  13  per 
cent.  This  is  an  honorable  record.  It  ia 
commonly  assumed  that  Boston  has  yielded  to 
New  York  City  the  position  of  literary  center 
of  the  country,  and  if  the  facts  were  not 
known  the  same  assumption  would  probably  be 
made  in  regard  to  science.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  Boston  has  126,  New  York  120  and  Wash- 
ington 110  of  our  leading  scientific  men.  In 
comparison  with  population  and  with  wealth, 
Boston  is  far  in  advance  of  New  York,  though 
it  is  Cambridge  and  Harvard  University  which 
give  Boston  its  preeminent  position. 

New  York  and  Pennsylvania  have  in  part 
retrieved  the  loss  due  to  men  dropping  out  of 
the  first  thousand  by  calling  men  of  this  rank 
from  other  states.  Though  they  have  lost, 
respectively,  22  and  12  through  the  failure  of 
their  men  to  maintain  their  positions,  they 
have  drawn  an  excess  of  13  and  7  from  other 
states,  so  that  their  total  losses  are  9  and  5. 
It  appears  that  the  immense  wealth  of  these 
states  has  been  but  sparingly  used  to  bring 
new  men  to  them,  whereas  the  conditions  are 
such  that  those  residing  there  are  more  likely 
to  lose  than  to  gain  in  scientific  position.  It 


686 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


may  be  unsafe  to  draw  sweeping  conclusions 
from  such  figures,  but  they  certainly  indicate 
that  residence  in  these  states  is  unfavorable 
to  scientific  productivity.  It  may  perhaps  be 
the  case  that  the  salaries  are  below  the  ex- 
pensive standards  of  living  and  that  oppor- 
tunities for  commercial  and  hack  work  are 
tempting,  so  that  men  are  drawn  away  from 
research.  The  District  of  Columbia  has  lost 
nine  men.  Eleven  have  been  removed  by 
death,  and  this  loss  has  not  been  made  good 
by  men  improving  their  positions  or  going  to 
reside  in  Washington.  In  view  of  the  in- 
creasing appropriations  made  by  the  govern- 
ment for  scientific  work  and  the  endowment 
of  the  Carnegie  Institution  this  is  not  a  favor- 
able record. 

Illinois  and  Wisconsin  show  the  gains  due 
to  men  who  have  improved  their  positions, 
there  being  no  significant  changes  due  to  re- 
movals. The  same  is  generally  true  in  regard 
to  the  gains  or  losses  in  the  other  north  cen- 
tral states  and  in  the  west  and  south.  The 
numbers  are  too  small  to  be  as  a  rule  signifi- 
cant. Missouri  and  Louisiana  have  each 
gained  three  men,  Arizona  two  and  Colorado 
one.  Ohio  and  Minnesota  are  exactly  station- 
ary. Indiana,  •  Michigan,  Iowa,  Texas  and 
California  have  in  each  case  lost  from  one  to 
three  men.  The  southern  states  (except 
Louisiana)  have  been  losing  even  the  few  sci- 
entific men  whom  they  had. 

Table  IX.  shows  also  the  distribution  of  the 
thousand  scientific  men  standing  below  the 
first  thousand.  The  men  are  not  as  well 
known  and  they  can  not  be  arranged  as  accu- 
rately in  the  order  of  merit.  They  were  not 
independently  selected  from  a  larger  group  by 
the  judges,  but  were  those  not  assigned  a  place 
in  the  first  thousand.  The  first  five  hundred 
were  selected  from  the  thousand  with  a  tol- 
erable degree  of  validity,  but  the  second  five 
hundred  can  only  be  regarded  as  representa- 
tive of  the  scientific  men  who  have  done  re- 
search work,  but  are  not  of  the  rank  of  the 
first  fifteen  hundred.  The  men  are,  however, 
arranged  in  the  order  of  merit,  and  probable 
errors  can  be  assigned  to  the  positions  as  in 


the  case  of  the  first  thousand.  The  number 
from  each  science  is  the  same  as  in  the  case  of 
the  first  thousand. 

It  is  an  honor  to  belong  to  this  second 
group  of  a  thousand  men;  they  deserve  well 
who  have  accomplished  research  work  and 
have  obtained  recognition  as  scientific  men. 
But  those  who  are  young  have  far  greater 
promise  than  those  who  are  older.  All  young 
men  of  ability  must  pass  through  the  second 
thousand  before  they  reach  the  first,  though 
they  are  likely  to  escape  notice  in  a  period 
which  may  be  short.  The  group  is  thus  heter- 
ogenous,  including  those  who  may  become  our 
leading  men  of  science  and  those  who  have 
attained  a  mediocre  though  creditable  position 
beyond  which  they  will  not  advance.  The 
same  conditions  hold  for  the  lower  hundreds 
of  the  first  thousand.  In  the  preceding  paper 
the  scientific  men  were  divided  into  two  groups 
of  500  each,  and  no  considerable  differences 
were  found  in  their  origin  or  distribution. 
This  appears  to  have  been  in  part  due  to  heter- 
ogeneous character  of  the  second  group.  Thus 
Massachusetts  had  74  men  in  the  first  five 
hundred  and  70  in  the  second,  while  New 
York  had  in  the  two  groups  93  and  99,  re- 
spectively. But  in  the  intervening  period 
more  men  in  Massachusetts  than  in  New  York 
have  retained  or  improved  their  positions.  It 
thus  appears  that  Dr.  F.  A.  Woods*  is  cor- 
rect in  holding  that  Massachusetts  has  not 
only  produced  more  scientific  men,  but  also 
men  of  higher  standing. 

The  second  thousand  includes  those  who 
have  dropped  down  from  the  first  thousand 
(201),  to  whom  consideration  has  already  been 
given.  The  others  have  been  divided  into 
those  above  and  those  below  the  median  age 
(42  years),  but  the  conditions  are  almost  too 
complicated  to  admit  of  analysis,  and  it  seems 
to  be  scarcely  worthwhile  to  give  the  figures. 
In  New  York  43  are  below  and  68  above  the 
median  age ;  in  Illinois  37  below  and  28  above, 
and  in  California  9  below  and  18  above.  The 
excess  of  older  men  in  New  York  may  be 
'"American  Men  of  Science  and  the  Question 
of  Heredity,"  SCIENCE,  N.  S.,  31:  205-209,  1910. 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


587 


attributed  to  its  earlier  development  and  to 
the  fact  that  older  men,  especially  in  applied 
science,  tend  to  reside  in  New  York  City. 
Chicago  is  of  more  recent  origin  and  has 
called  younger  men  to  its  universities.  In 
Massachusetts  and  the  District  of  Columbia 
there  are  about  equal  numbers  below  and 
above  the  median  age.  Older  men  reside  in 
Boston  and  Washington,  and  younger  men 
have  been  called  to  the  institutions  of  learning 
in  the  former  city  and  to  the  government 
service  in  the  latter.  The  eight  scientific  men 
in  the  Philippines  are  all  below  the  median 
age. 

The  men  of  the  second  thousand  are  more 
equally  and  widely  distributed  over  the  coun- 
try than  those  of  the  first  thousand.  The 
regions  and  institutions  which  are  the  strong- 
est in  numbers  tend  to  have  also  the  larger 
share  of  men  of  the  higher  rank.  Thus 
Massachusetts  has  165  men  of  the  first  thou- 
sand and  103  men  of  the  second  thousand; 
Connecticut  50  of  the  first  and  32  of  the 
second.  The  educational  institutions  of  these 
states  have  called  and  kept  good  men.  They 
have  relatively  more  in  the  first  thousand  than 
in  the  second,  as  they  have  relatively  more  in 
the  first  hundred  than  of  lower  rank.  New 
York  has  a  smaller  preponderance  of  the  better 
men.  In  the  District  of  Columbia  the  scien- 
tific men  are  drawn  equally  from  the  first  and 
second  thousands.  Thanks  to  the  recent  de- 
velopment of  its  great  university,  Wisconsin 
has  36  men  in  the  first  thousand  and  14  in  the 
second.  The  superior  men  are  in  the  majority 
in  Missouri,  but  the  other  north  central  states 
have  fewer  men  of  the  first  rank  than  of  the 
second.  California  has  50  men  of  the  first 
thousand  and  38  of  the  second.  In  general 
the  western  and  southern  states  which  have 
but  few  scientific  men  have  relatively  more  of 
the  second  thousand.  It  is  of  course  impor- 
tant to  have  even  men  of  this  rank.  There 
are  advantages  and  disadvantages  in  concen- 
trating the  better  men  in  a  few  regions  and 
institutions.  The  standards  of  the  men  in 
both  thousands  are  becoming  higher,  though 
more  slowly  than  would  be  wished. 


The  distribution  of  our  scientific  men  is 
almost  entirely  determined  by  educational  and 
scientific  institutionSj  including  under  the  lat- 
ter the  government  bureaus.  Table  X.  shows 
the  institutions  with  which  three  or  more  of 
those  among  our  thousand  leading  men  of  sci- 
ence are  connected,  together  with  the  gain  or 
loss  in  a  period  of  about  four  years.  The  table 
also  gives  the  ratio  of  the  number  of  leading 
scientific  men  in  each  institution  to  the  total 
number  of  instructors,  to  the  total  number  of 
students,  to  the  value  of  buildings  and  grounds 
and  to  the  current  income.  Harvard,  Wis- 
consin, the  Carnegie  Institution,  Illinois,  Yale 
and  Chicago  have  made  the  most  notable 
gains.  Columbia,  California,  the  Geological 
Survey,  the  Smithsonian  Institution  and  the 
Department  of  Agriculture  have  suffered  the 
most  severe  losses.  Four  years  ago  Harvard 
had  66.5,  Columbia  60  and  Chicago  37  of  our 
leading  scientific  men,  as  selected  three  years 
previously.  After  this  short  period  it  has 
resulted  that  Harvard  has  31.5  more  than 
Columbia  and  Chicago  the  same  number. 
Such  changes  are  only  to  a  small  degree  due 
to  the  probable  errors  of  the  arrangements, 
though  in  the  case  of  Columbia  the  fact  that 
last  time  there  were  11  and  this  time  but  two 
men  in  the  last  hundred  may  be  attributed  in 
part  to  the  probable  error  and  account  in  part 
for  the  loss  of  that  university.  There  is  also 
a  different  kind  of  chance  variation  due  to  the 
date  to  which  the  census  refers.  Thus  since 
January  1,  Harvard  has  lost  two  of  its  great- 
est men,  while  the  losses  of  Columbia  occurred 
earlier  and  certain  important  positions  were 
vacant  at  that  time.  It  is,  however,  a  fact 
not  without  significance  that  Columbia  and 
California,  in  which  faculty  control  is  re- 
garded by  the  administration  as  less  important 
than  executive  efficiency,  have  suffered  the 
most  serious  losses,  whereas  Harvard  and 
Yale,  where  the  methods  of  appointment  and 
promotion  are  more  democratic,  show  most 
gratifying  advances.  Yale  has  disproved  the 
assertion  that  a  faculty  is  not  able  to  select 
its  own  members.  The  Smithsonian  Institu- 
tion and  the  government  bureaus,  which  are 


588 


AMERICAN    MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


somewhat  autocratically  controlled,  show  seri- 
ous losses,  but  these  should  be  in  part  at  least 
attributed  to  the  inadequate  salaries.  The 
gain  of  50  per  cent,  in  the  Bureau  of  Stand- 
ards shows  that  losses  are  not  inevitable. 

Wisconsin  and  Illinois  are  the  state  univer- 
sities which  have  made  the  most  notable  prog- 
ress. Wisconsin  has  moved  ahead  of  Mich- 
igan and  is  nearly  equal  to  the  Johns  Hopkins 
and  Cornell.  The  gain  of  almost  200  per 
cent,  at  Illinois  is  in  the  main  due  to  the 
departments  of  chemistry  and  mathematics, 
to  the  heads  of  which  the  university  was  so 
wise  as  to  call  men  of  high  scientific  standing. 
Michigan  has  a  gain  of  3.5,  Missouri  of  two 
and  Indiana  of  one.  Minnesota  and  Kansas 
are  exactly  stationary.  Ohio  has  a  loss  of 
one,  Iowa  and  Texas  of  two  and  California 
of  8.5. 

The  Johns  Hopkins  has  gained  three  men, 
which  is  satisfactory  in  view  of  its  limited 
endowment  and  the  high  standards  it  has  al- 
ways maintained.  The  Massachusetts  Insti- 
tute of  Technology  has  gained  5.5,  Cornell 
1.5,  Pennsylvania  1,  Princeton  2  and  Stan- 
ford 5.  We  may  hope  for  a  considerable  fur- 
ther advance  at  Princeton  in  the  near  future. 
It  will  be  noted  that  in  general  the  larger  in- 
stitutions have  gained,  and  this  relative  gain 
represents  a  greater  absolute  gain  as  the 
standard  of  the  thousand  becomes  continually 
higher  with  the  increase  of  the  numbers  of 
scientific  men. 

Among  universities  with  which  fewer  sci- 
entific men  are  connected,  Western  Reserve 
has  gained  four  men  and  Brown,  Missouri 
and  Tulane  have  each  gained  2,  whereas  Ne- 
braska has  lost  3  and  Wesleyan,  Syracuse, 
Northwestern,  Cincinnati  and  Texas  have 
each  lost  two.  Bryn  Mawr,  Vassar  and  Wel- 
lesley  have  gained  and  Smith  has  lost.  Small 
changes  of  this  character  are  not  necessarily 
significant,  as  they  may  be  accounted  for  by 
the  chance  error  of  arrangement  or  the 
chance  date  to  which  the  data  refer.  Still 
in  each  ease  the  change  is  probably  a  real  one 
and  of  importance  when  considered  in  rela- 
tion to  the  total  number  of  professors  in  the 


institution.  The  gain  of  a  scientific  man  of 
standing  is  worth  more  to  an  institution  than 
a  building  costing  $100,000. 

Table  X.  gives  also  the  ratio  of  the  number 
of  scientific  men  of  the  thousand  in  each  in- 
stitution to  the  total  number  of  instructors, 
to  the  total  number  of  students,  to  the  value 
of  the  buildings  and  grounds  and  to  the  in- 
come for  current  expenses,  the  figures  being 
based  on  the  report  of  the  commissioner  of 
education  for  1909.'  The  institutions  vary 
greatly.  One  half  of  all  the  instructors  at 
Clark  are  among  our  leading  men  of  science, 
whereas  in  certain  institutions  there  is  but 
one  in  fifty.  The  institutions  which  stand 
the  highest  are  Clark,  the  Johns  Hopkins, 
Chicago,  Stanford,  Bryn  Mawr,  Harvard, 
Wesleyan,  Case  and  Princeton.  These  insti- 
tutions have  at  least  one  scientific  man  of 
standing  among  each  ten  instructors.  It  is 
of  interest  to  note  that  the  five  institutions 
that  have  the  best  record  are  of  comparatively 
recent  establishment.  They  have  given  a  rel- 

*  Unfortunately  the  figures  in  the  report  do  not 
seem  to  be  uniformly  accurate.  For  example,  the 
value  of  the  buildings  of  Columbia  University  are 
reported  by  the  commissioner  of  education  at 
$2,238,800,  and  those  of  the  U.  S.  Military  Acad- 
emy at  $20,000,000,  whereas  the  buildings  on  the 
Columbia  campus  have  apparently  cost  much  more 
than  those  at  West  Point.  The  treasurer  gives 
the  assessed  value  of  the  Columbia  buildings 
(apart  from  Barnard  College,  Teachers  College 
and  the  College  of  Pharmacy)  as  over  $6,000,000. 
The  commissioner  of  education  reports  the  total 
receipts  of  Columbia  University,  exclusive  of  gifts 
for  endowment,  to  have  been  $5,572,943,  whereas 
the  treasurer  reports  for  the  same  year  an  income 
fo.-  the  Columbia  College  corporation  of  $1,614,- 
166.  The  correct  figures  have  been  substituted  in 
the  case  of  Columbia,  but  it  is  to  be  feared  that 
other  figures  in  the  report  are  misleading.  The 
writer  considered  using  the  figures  collected  by 
the  Carnegie  Foundation,  but  these  also  seem  to 
be  difficult  to  interpret.  Thus  Illinois  is  said  to 
have  an  annual  income  (for  running  expenses)  of 
$1,200,000  and  to  spend  $491,675  on  salaries  of 
teachers,  and  Pennsylvania  to  have  an  annual 
income  of  $589,226,  and  to  spend  $433,311  on 
salaries. 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


589 


TABLE    X.      THE    NUMBEB    OF    SCIENTIFIC    MEN    CON- 
NECTED  WITH   INSTITUTIONS   WHEN  THESE 
ABE  THBEE   OB   MOBE 


d 
fe 

n 

o  ^ 

a  § 

3* 

Ratio  to 
Instr. 

To 

Students. 

'O  'O  m 

"~*  £3  T3 
*D  «*  fl 
02  OQ  S 
boo 

£.2o 

A 

oS 
H§ 

a 

M 

Harvard  

79.5 
4^.5 
48.0 
38.0 
35.0 
33.5 
30.0 
280 
25.5 
25.0 
23.5 
21.0 
190 
18.5 
18.0 
17.0 
16.5 
16.0 
12.0 
11.0 
10.0 
9.0 
8.5 
7.5 
8.0 
8.0 
8.0 
8.0 
7.0 
7.0 
7.0 
7.0 
6.0 
6.0 
6.0 
5.5 

5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
5.0 
4.0 
4.0 
4.0 
4.0 
4.0 
4.0 
4.0 
3.0 
3.0 
3.0 
3.0 
3.0 
3.0 
3.0 
3.0 
3.0 
3.0 
3.0 

+130 
+  8.5 
-12.0 
+  11.5 
+  1.5 
+  3.0 
+12.0 
-  4.0 
-  6.5 
+  5.5 
+  3.5 
+  5.0 
+12.0 
-  8.5 
+  1.0 
+11.0 
+  2.0 
-  6.0 
+  4.0 
+  2.0 
0 
-  1.0 
-  1.0 
-  0.5 
+  1.0 
+  4.0 
+  2.0 
+  2.0 
+  2.0 
+  1.0 
0 
-  2.0 
+  3.0 
+  1.0 
-  3.0 
-  0.5 

+  1.0 
0 
-  1.0 
-  2.0 
+  1.0 
+  1.0 
+  1.0 
+  1.0 
-  1.0 
-  2.0 
-  2.0 
+  3.0 
+  2.0 
+  1.5 
+  1.0 
+  1.0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
-  2.0 
-  4.0 

7.8 
6.0 
13.3 
10.6 
16.5 
S-.6 
13.2 

10.1 
12.3 
6.9 

21.3 
25.2 
29.2 
9.8 

14.7 
20.1 
22.1 
28.1 

2.0 
24.5 
7.2 

12.9 
43.0 
10.4 
44.6 

15.7 
36.1 
15.4 

27.4 
36.2 
30.6 
46.8 
8.8 

54.2 
25.3 
29.2 
42.3 
8.5 

52.0 
35.3 

61.0 
19.0 

61.6 
16.7 
28.6 

49.2 
114.9 
96.7 
90.3 
113.9 
21.8 
150.7 

58.5 
200.8 
80.3 

191.9 
229.0 
251.9 
79.7 

259.4 
264.9 
281.7 
446.5 

17.7 
126.3 
52.5 

141.9 
353.0 
112.0 
319.3 

131.0 
544.3 
224.1 

211.6 
442.0 
494.4 
627.2 
111.3 

279.5 
254.5 
393.0 
348.5 
80.5 

365.6 
427.3 

414.3 
225.3 

502.6 
162.6 
611.0 

138,364 
187,741 
259,954 

122,966 
186,095 
126,104 

24,729 
35,986 
45,989 
34,142 
41,106 
10,121 
50,499 

20,859 
57,539 
39,571 

81,387 
56,368 
99,647 
24,964 

54,870 
133,348 
85,784 
49,062 

17,585 
30,496 
37,185 

65,813 
50,349 
36,194 
134,191 

27,191 
101,509 
55,338 

113,408 
91,775 
109,620 
148,350 
12,204 

54,501 
145,015 
90,212 
68,624 
25,613 

54,967 
127,937 

122,529 
29,166 

58,437 
110,691 

Chicago  

Columbia  

Yale  

Cornell  

Johns  Hopkins  . 
Wisconsin  
Dept.  Agric.  .  .  . 
Geol.  Surv  
Mass.  Inst  

53,480 
87,649 
333,810 

281,761 
111,971 

157,591 
387,008 
323,889 
435,294 

66,562 
187,996 
243,649 

257,142 
85,842 
306,714 

103,833 
210,225 
345,454 

220,000 
328,938 
550.051 
207,500 

616,421 
329,875 
367,030 
220,616 

601,297 
423,841 

309,844 
362,667 

111,500 
340,234 

Michigan  

Stanford  

Carnegie  Inst.  .  . 
California  

Pennsylvania  .  . 
Illinois  

Princeton  

Smithsonian  .  .  . 
Bur.  of  Stan.  .  .  . 
Missouri  

Minnesota  

Ohio  State  
New  York  

Amer.  Museum. 
Clark  

West.  Reserve  . 
Bryn  Mawr  .... 
N.  Y.  Bot.  Gar. 
Brown  

Indiana  

Virginia  

Northwestern    . 
Rockefeller  Inst. 
North  Carolina  . 
Nebraska  

Dartmouth  .... 
Washington 
(St.  Louis)  .  .  . 
Kansas  

Iowa  State  
Syracuse  

Case  

Field  Museum  .  . 
Tufts  

Vassar  

Smith  
Cincinnati  

Wesleyan  

Wistar  Inst  
Tulane  

Wellesley  

Conn.  Sta. 

Pittsburgh  
Colorado  Coll.  . 
Gen.  Elect.  Co. 
G.  Washington 
Worcester  
Texas  

U.  S.  Navy  

atively  more  prominent  position  to  science 
than  the  older  institutions  and  have  selected 
better  men.  At  certain  other  institutions  the 
ratios  are:  Yale,  10.6;  Michigan,  12.3;  Wis- 
consin, 13.2;  Columbia,  13.3;  Cornell,  16.5; 
California,  21.3;  Pennsylvania,  25.2.  The  in- 
stitutions having  more  than  forty  instructors 
to  one  scientific  man  of  standing  are  George 
Washington,  Pittsburgh,  Tufts,  Tulane,  Syra- 
cuse, Northwestern,  Indiana  and  Cincinnati. 
These  differences  are  truly  remarkable  and 
should  be  widely  known  in  the  interest  of 
scientific  education  and  the  advancement  of 
science.  Institutions  differ  in  the  relative 
strengths  of  their  departments,  but  it  will  be 
found  that  those  which  have  men  of  distinc- 
tion in  the  natural  and  exact  sciences  also 
have  such  men  in  other  subjects.  Students 
should' certainly  use  every  effort  to  attend  in- 
stitutions having  large  proportions  of  men  of 
distinction  among  their  instructors.  It  will 
be  ordinarily  the  case  that  in  such  institu- 
tions the  younger  instructors  are  also  of 
higher  standing.  Scientific  men,  especially 
those  beginning  their  careers,  should  try  to 
accept  positions  only  where  the  higher  stand- 
ards obtain. 

In  general  the  institutions  which  have  a 
large  proportion  of  scientific  men  of  distinc- 
tion among  their  instructors  will  also  have  a 
large  number  in  comparison  with  the  student 
attendance.  But  institutions  vary  greatly  in 
the  number  of  students  for  each  instructor — 
from  3.9  at  the  Johns  Hopkins  to  18.1  at 
Chicago.10  For  each  scientific  man  among  the 
thousand,  the  numbers  of  students  are :  Clark, 
18;  Johns  Hopkins,  22;  Harvard,  49;  Bryn 
Mawr,  52;  the  Massachusetts  Institute,  58; 
Princeton  and  Stanford,  80;  Yale,  90;  Co- 
lumbia, 97.  These  are  the  institutions  which 
have  at  least  one  scientific  instructor  of  dis- 
tinction for  each  hundred  students.  The  in- 
stitutions not  having  one  such  instructor  for 
five  hundred  students  are  Syracuse,  Texas, 
Nebraska  and  George  Washington. 

"These  remarkable  differences  are  confirmed  by 
the  report  from  the  Carnegie  Foundation,  which 
gives  the  ratios  as  3.7  and  17.4. 


590 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


There  are  extraordinary  differences  or  dis- 
crepancies in  the  relation  between  the  value 
of  the  buildings  and  grounds  of  different  in- 
stitutions and  their  annual  incomes  for  cur- 
rent expenses  as  given  in  the  report  of  the 
commissioner  of  education.  Some  institu- 
tions, as  Michigan  and  Illinois,  are  said  to 
spend  nearly  as  much  annually  on  their  edu- 
cational work  as  the  total  value  of  their  build- 
ings and  grounds,  whereas  others,  as  New 
York,  Stanford  and  Tulane,  are  said  to 
spend  scarcely  more  than  a  tenth  as  much. 
Apparently  but  little  reliance  is  to  be  placed 
on  such  figures.  In  so  far  as  they  are  correct 
the  Massachusetts  Institute  has  one  scientific 
man  of  standing  for  each  fifty-three  thousand 
dollars  invested  in  buildings  and  grounds. 
The  other  institutions  having  at  least  one 
scientific  man  for  each  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars so  invested  are  Clark,  Michigan  and 
Indiana.  The  institutions  having  but  one 
scientific  man  of  standing  for  four  hundred 
thousand  dollars  or  more  invested  in  build- 
ings and  grounds  are  Vassar,  Tulane,  Syra- 
cuse, New  York  and  Wellesley.  The  Johns 
Hopkins  supports  one  leading  scientific  man 
for  each  ten  thousand  dollars  that  it  spends. 
The  other  institutions  which  have  at  least  one 
scientific  man  for  each  twenty-five  thousand 
dollars  spent  annually  are  Clark,  the  Massa- 
chusetts Institute,  Harvard  and  Princeton. 
Vassar,  Northwestern  and  Minnesota  are  the 
institutions  that  spend  the  most  in  proportion 
to  the  number  of  their  scientific  men. 

Men  who  stand  toward  the  upper  end  of  the 
list  are  of  far  greater  consequence  than  those 
toward  the  bottom.  Here  too  Harvard  shows 
its  primacy  and  in  unmistakable  terms.  Of 
our  hundred  leading  men  of  science  nineteen 
are  at  Harvard,  as  compared  with  nine  at 
Chicago  and  seven  at  Columbia  and  the 
Johns  Hopkins.11  Of  the  second  hundred 
Harvard  has  10.5,  Chicago  15,  Columbia  6 
and  the  Johns  Hopkins  3. 

"The  membership  of  the  National  Academy  of 
Sciences  corresponds  closely  with  these  figures — 
18  at  Harvard,  9  at  Chicago,  8  at  Columbia  and 
7  at  the  Johns  Hopkins. 


It  is  not  possible  to  estimate  the  value  of  a 
great  scientific  man  in  terms  of  other  men. 
It  may  even  be  argued  with  plausibility  that 
the  progress  of  science  depends  exclusively  on 
the  few  men  of  genius,  while  the  mass  of  sci- 
entific men  erect  obstacles,  and  are  only  of 
use  as  a  group  which  on  occasion  supplies  the 
great  man.  But  in  a  comparison  of  this  kind 
we  have  in  mind  men  such  as  Galileo,  New- 
ton, Laplace  and  Darwin.  In  the  list  of  a 
thousand  living  American  men  of  science, 
those  in  the  lead  are  not  incomparable  with 
the  others.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  under- 
take to  measure  them  by  the  salaries  we  pay. 
These  are  obviously  imperfectly  adjusted  to 
merit,  and  there  are  kinds  of  merit  other  than 
scientific  distinction.  If,  however,  a  univer- 
sity pays  its  more  distinguished  professors 
three  times  as  much  as  its  younger  assistant 
professors,'  it  estimates  the  one  to  be  worth 
three  times  as  much  as  the  other.  In  the  case 
of  the  salaries  and  earnings  of  psychologists, 
it  appears  that  those  in  the  first  hundred  of 
the  thousand  earn  about  three  times,  and 
those  in  the  second  and  third  hundreds  about 
twice  as  much  as  those  in  the  lower  half  of  the 
list.  With  numerous  individual  exceptions 
— some  men  of  high  standing  even  paying  for 
the  privilege  of  doing  scientific  work,  while 
some  men  of  medium  standing  may  receive 
comparatively  large  salaries12 — we  find  that 
the  salaries  increase  with  distinction  and 
roughly  measure  it,  placing  it  about  three 
times  as  high  in  the  upper  hundred  as  in  the 
lower  third  of  the  list.  It  is  also  the  case 

u  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  point  out  again 
the  failure  of  our  competitive  system  to  reward 
scientific  research,  but  it  may  be  illustrated  by 
an  example.  Lord  Kelvin  made  a  large  fortune 
by  his  inventions  and  engineering  advice;  he 
earned  a  modest  salary  as  professor  at  Glasgow; 
he  was  paid  nothing  for  his  great  contributions 
to  mathematical  physics,  though  he  might  have 
earned  large  sums  in  the  time  devoted  to  these. 
His  technical  work  was  doubtless  worth  far  more 
to  society  than  he  was  paid  for  it,  but  it  was 
worth  less  than  his  scientific  research.  In  his 
three  lines  of  work  he  was  paid  inversely  as  the 
value  of  his  services. 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


591 


that  the  range  of  merit  in  the  curve  of  dis- 
tribution covered  by  the  first  hundred  is  al- 
most exactly  equal  to  the  range  covered  by  the 
second  and  third  hundreds,  and  each  of  these 
is  equal  to  the  range  covered  by  the  remain- 
ing seven  hundred.13  It  may  not  be  possible 
to  fix  a  zero  point  at  which  scientific  merit 
begins,  but  it  can  plausibly  be  placed  at  a 
point  below  the  first  thousand,  about  equal  to 
the  range  of  merit  covered  by  the  other  three 
groups.  In  this  case  the  merit  of  those 
toward  the  bottom  of  each  of  the  three  groups 
in  the  thousand — the  first  hundred,  the  second 
and  third  hundreds,  and  the  last  seven  hun- 
dred— would  be  as  3:2:1. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  sum  up  in  one  figure 
the  strength  of  a  university  or  department, 
weights  have  been  assigned  to  the  men  on  this 
basis — a  man  in  the  lower  four  hundred 
being  the  unit,  those  in  the  other  hundreds 
were  assigned  ratings  as  follows:  VII.  and 
VI.  =  1.2;  V.  =  1.4;  IV.  =  1.6;  III.  =  1.9; 
H.  =  2.2 ;  and  I.  =  3.  The  first  hundred  were 
subdivided,  the  lower  fifty  being  assigned  2.5, 
and  the  upper  twenty -fives,,  respectively,  3  and 
4.  These  ratings  scarcely  measure  the  real 
value  of  the  men  to  society;  they  are  nearly 
all  paid  less  than  they  are  worth,  and  the 
greater  the  performance  of  a  man  the  more 
out  of  proportion  is  the  payment  for  his  ser- 
vices. They  do,  however,  give  with  tolerable 
accuracy  the  value  attached  to  men  in  our 
competitive  system.  A  university  can  obtain 
a  man  of  the  first  rank  for  from  $5,000  to 
$7,500,  or  a  man  in  the  lower  hundreds  of  the 
list  for  from  $2,000  to  $2,500.  It  is  further 
the  case  that  a  moderate  alteration  in  the 
weights  adopted  would  not  considerably  alter 
the  comparative  results. 

The  scientific  strength  of  our  strongest  in- 
stitutions rated  in  the  manner  described,  to- 
gether with  the  gain  or  loss  in  a  period  of 
four  years  is  shown  in  Table  XI.  Thus  Har- 
vard has  a  total  scientific  strength  equivalent 
to  146  men  in  the  lower  part  of  the  thousand 
and  has  made  a  gain  equivalent  to  16.3  such 
men  in  the  course  of  about  four  years.  In 

18  Cf.  p.  552  above. 


general  the  figures  in  this  table  correspond 
with  those  in  the  preceding  table,  but  they 
tell  us  more.  They  take  account  not  only  of 
the  number  of  men  gained  or  lost,  but  also  of 
the  rank  of  these  men  and  of  the  changes 
which  have  taken  place  through  men  improv- 
ing their  standing  or  failing  to  maintain  it. 


TABLE   XI. 


THE   SCIENTIFIC   STRENGTH   OF  THE 
LEADING   INSTITUTIONS 


Weighted 
Number. 

Gain  or 
Loss. 

Harvard  

146  0 

+16  3 

Chicago  

94  6 

+18  0 

Columbia  

79  3 

—  13  3 

Hopkins  

63  4 

-1-42 

Yale  

61  7 

+  12  2 

Cornell  

57  6 

4-46 

Wisconsin  

49  0 

+22  3 

Geol.  Survey  

43  8 

12  2 

Dept.  Agric  

40  9 

—  4  9 

Mass.  Inst  

37  7 

+  95 

Michigan  

37  1 

—  3  5 

California  

32  4 

—  5  0 

Carnegie  Inst  

30  9 

+19  4 

Stanford  

30  0 

4-48 

Princeton  

28  6 

4-75 

Smithsonian  Inst.  .  .  . 

26.0 

—  7  3 

Illinois  

25  0 

+16  7 

Pennsylvania  

244 

—  4  5 

Bur.  of  Standards  

18  9 

4-01 

Clark  

16.0 

+  2.0 

If  only  the  number  of  men  is  considered, 
Columbia  and  Chicago  are  equal  and  Harvard 
has  made  a  larger  gain  than  Chicago  within 
the  past  four  years.  But  Chicago  has  in- 
creased the  number  of  men  in  the  first  hun- 
dred by  two  and  in  the  second  hundred  by  five. 
When  we  count  up  the  total  scientific 
strength,  we  find  that  Chicago  is  in  advance 
of  Columbia  by  the  equivalent  of  15.3  men 
and  has  gained  more  than  Harvard  by  the 
equivalent  of  1.7  men.  Wisconsin  and  Illi- 
nois also  show  larger  gains  than  Harvard. 
While  Yale  has  more  scientific  men  in  the 
thousand  than  the  Johns  Hopkins,  and  Stan- 
ford than  California,  the  order  of  the  insti- 
tutions is  in  each  case  reversed  when  the 
effective  strengths  are  calculated.  The  fig- 
ures on  the  table  appear  to  be  significant  and 
important,  and  it  would  be  well  if  they  could 
be  brought  to  the  attention  of  those  respon- 


92 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


Bible  for  the  conduct  of  the  institutions  to 
•which  they  relate. 

Assuming  the  validity  of  the  method  of 
weighting  used  or,  at  all  events,  its  relative 
validity  for  purposes  of  comparison,  consid- 
erable reliance  may  be  placed  on  the  figures 
given  in  the  table.  The  probable  error  of  a 
man  assigned  a  weight  of  one  is  greater  owing 
to  the  break  at  the  bottom  of  the  thousand, 
and  this  is  the  largest  factor  in  the  probable 
error  of  the  total.  Men  just  coming  within 
the  thousand  and  men  just  falling  below  it 
are  of  almost  equal  merit,  yet  the  former  are 
counted  and  the  latter  are  not.  Still  the  prob- 
able error  of  a  man  assigned  the  weight  of 
one  is  less  than  0.5.  When  the  errors  are 
algebraically  added  the  probable  error  of  the 
sum  increases  as  the  square  root  of  the  num- 
ber, and  we  may  assume  the  probable  errors 
of  the  figures  given  in  the  table  to  be  not 
greater  than  one  half  of  their  square  root. 
Thus  in  the  case  of  Harvard,  we  may  assume 
that  the  chances  are  even  that  its  real 
strength  is  between  142  and  152  and  its  real 
gain  between  14.3  and  18.3. 

The  scientific  strength  of  an  institution 
does  not  necessarily  measure  its  total  strength. 
Common  observation  would  lead  us  to  believe 
that  the  Johns  Hopkins  and  Cornell  are  rela- 
tively stronger  in  the  natural  and  exact  sci- 
ences than  Harvard  and  Yale.  We  may  'per- 
haps assume  that  the  relative  strength  of  a 
university  in  different  departments  tends  to 
be  proportional  to  the  number  of  research  de- 
grees conferred.  Data  concerning  these  the 
writer  has  each  year  collected  and  analyzed.14 
Chicago  has  in  the  past  thirteen  years  con- 
ferred exactly  half  its  doctorates  of  philosophy 
in  the  exact  and  natural  sciences.  The  per- 
centages for  the  other  universities  which  con- 
fer most  of  these  degrees  are:  Cornell,  63; 
Johns  Hopkins,  57;  Yale  and  Pennsylvania, 
43;  Harvard  and  Columbia,  39.  On  this 
basis,  the  total  strength  of  these  universities, 
the  unit  as  before  being  a  man  in  the  lower 
part  of  the  thousand  scientific  men,  is: 

"Cf.  for  the  last  report  SCIENCE,  N.  S.,  32: 
231-238,  August  19,  1910. 


Harvard    374.4 

Columbia    203.2 

Chicago   188.2 

Yale  140.7 

Johns  Hopkins    111.1 

Cornell    91.9 

Pennsylvania    56.7 

These  figures  represent  with  tolerable  ac- 
curacy the  strength  of  each  institution,  so  far 
as  the  subjects  leading  to  the  doctorate  of 
philosophy  are  concerned.  They  do  not,  how- 
ever, give  adequate  recognition  to  the  pro- 
fessional schools,  schools  of  law  being  prac- 
tically ignored.  Harvard  has  the  strongest 
schools  of  law  and  medicine  and  has  a  school 
of  theology,  so  its  primacy  would  not  be  af- 
fected if  these  were  fully  accounted  for.  In 
its  strength  Harvard  is  nearly  double  Co- 
lumbia and  Chicago,  which  come  close  to- 
gether. Each  of  these  universities  has  nearly 
double  the  strength  of  the  Johns  Hopkins, 
which  again  has  double  the  strength  of 
Pennsylvania. 

The  figures  at  hand  enable  us  to  measure 
the  strength  of  the  scientific  departments  of 
the  different  universities.  They  are  given  in 
Table  XII.  for  the  ten  strongest  departments 
in  each  of  the  twelve  sciences,  together  with 
the  gain  or  loss  within  the  period  of  four 
years.  The  institutions  are  arranged  in  the 
order  of  strength  of  the  department,  but  when 
this  is  less  than  four  the  figures  are  omitted 
to  avoid  giving  possible  information  as  to  the 
standing  of  individuals.  The  probable  errors 
of  the  figures  given  in  the  table  are  somewhat 
less  than  one  half  their  square  root.  Thus  the 
strength  of  the  department  of  mathematics  at 
Chicago  is  equivalent  to  16.8  men  on  the  lower 
part  of  the  list,  and  the  chances  are  even  that 
this  figure  is  correct  within  two  places.  The 
gain  in  four  years  has  been  equivalent  to  2.8 
such  men,  and  this  figure  is  likely  to  be  cor- 
rect within  0.8.  A  gain  of  this  kind  may  be 
due  to  the  calling  of  new  men  or  to  the  win- 
ning of  higher  places  by  the  same  men. 

It  should  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  figures 
refer  only  to  men  included  in  the  first  thou- 
sand, and  that  these  are  graded  for  distinction 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


593 


TABLE  XII.   THE  TEN  STRONGEST  DEPARTMENTS  1W  EACH  SCIENCE  TOGETHEB  WITH  THEIB  GAIN  OB  LOSS 

IN  A  PERIOD  OF  ABOUT  FOUR  TEARS 


Mathematics. 

Physics. 

Chemistry 

Astronomy. 

Chicago  .  .  . 
Harvard  .  .  . 
Columbia  .  . 
Yale  

16.8 
14.2 
8.4 
8.1 
8 
6.9 
6.9 
6.7 
4.1 

+2.8} 
+1 
-1.3 
+  1.2 
+8 
+2.7 
+0.1 
+6.7 
+1.9 

Harvard  .  .  . 
Bur.  Stand. 
Princeton  .  . 
Hopkins  .  .  . 
Chicago  .... 
Columbia  .  . 
Mass.  Tech. 
Cornell  .... 
Carnegie  .  .  . 
Dept.  Agr.  . 

19.6 
15.9 
9.6 
9.4 
9.3 
9.1 
9 
8.3 
8.1 
6.1 

+6.1 
+3.4 
+3.9 
+3.2 
+4.1 
-8.9 
+2.8 
-1.6 
+4.9 
-0.9 

Mass.  Tech. 
Yale  

19 
13.6 
12.8 
11.3 
11 
8.9 
8.5 
8.3 
8.2 
8.1 

+  5.9 
+  4.4 
+  6.5 
-  2.5 
+  3.6 
-  0.7 
+  1.4 
+  73 
+  1.8 
+  2.4 

Chicago  .... 
California  .  . 
Harvard  .  .  . 
Carnegie  .  .  . 
Yale  

8.9 
8.7 
7.9 
6.8 

+1.9 
-1.2 
+1.4 
+3.6 

Dept.  Agr.  . 
Harvard  .  .  . 
Hopkins  .  .  . 
Cornell  .... 
Columbia  .  . 
Illinois  

Illinois.  .  .  . 
Princeton  .  . 
Cornell  .... 
Wisconsin.  . 
Mass.  Tech. 
Stanford  .  .  . 

Columbia  .  . 
U.  S.  Navy  . 
Wisconsin  .  . 
Penna  
Michigan  .  .  . 

Wisconsin  .  . 
Chicago  .... 

Geology. 

Botany. 

Zoology. 

Physiology. 

Geol.  Surv. 
Yale 

40.3 
9.6 
7.9 
7.4 
6.4 
5.1 
4.9 
4.6 

-5.3 

+0.4 
-1.2 
-1.3 
+2.2 
+1.3 
-0.3 
+1.5 

Harvard  .  .  . 
N.  Y.  Bot.  . 
Dept.  Agr.  . 
Chicago  .... 
Cornell  .... 
Stanford  .  .  . 
Wisconsin  .  . 
Mo.  Bot  
Carnegie  .  .  . 
Hopkins  .  .  . 

18.3 
13.5 
13 
12.9 
10 
5.9 
5.2 
52 
5.1 

+  3.2 
0 
-11.6 
+  2.3 
+  2.8 
+  2.2 
+  1.1 
+  1-4 
+  5.1 

Harvard  .  .  . 
Columbia  .  . 
Chicago  .  .  . 
Am.  Museum 
Cornell  .... 
Yale  

22 
18.1 
13.8 
10.9 
8.8 
8.3 
7.6 
7.6 
6.5 
5.6 

+3.3 

+1-4 
+  1.6 
-2.6 
+2.3 
+2.3 
+0.9 
+0.7 
-2.4 
+2 

Harvard  .  .  . 
Yale  

9.9 
7.1 
6.1 
4.9 
4.6 
4.2 
4 

+0.1 
+2.2 
-1.1 
+2.7 
+1.4 
+4.2 
+1.8 

Harvard  .  .  . 
Chicago  .  .  . 
Wisconsin  .  . 
Smithsonian 
Cornell  .... 
Hopkins.  .  . 
Stanford.  .  . 
Columbia  .  . 

Hopkins  .  .  . 
Rockefeller  . 
Chicago  .  .  . 
W.  Reserve. 
California  .  . 
Wisconsin  .  . 
Cornell  .... 
New  York   . 

Stanford  .  .  . 
Dept.  Agr.  . 
Smithson  .  .  . 
Princeton  .  . 

Anatomy. 

Pathology. 

Anthropology 

Psychology. 

Hopkins.  .  . 
Harvard.  .  . 
Michigan  .  . 
Wistar  
Wisconsin  .  . 
Minnesota  . 
Columbia.  . 
Missouri.  .  . 
Penna  
Chicago  .  .  . 

6.8 
4.9 

-  1.0 
-  0.3 

Harvard  .  .  . 
Hopkins  .  .  . 
Chicago  .  .  . 
Columbia  .  . 
Rockefeller  . 
Michigan  .  . 
Penna  
New  York  .  . 
P.  I.  Bur.Sci. 
Wisconsin  .  . 

16.5 
11.5 
7 
6.2 
6.1 
6 
4.8 

+4.1 
+1 
+2 
+0.2 
+  1.5 
-1.3 
-0.3 

Smithson.  .  . 
Columbia  .  . 
Harvard  .  .  . 
Field  Mus.  . 
California  .  . 
Am.  Museum 
Brooklyn  .  .  . 
Clark  

10.1 

-3.3 

Columbia  .  . 
Harvard  .  .  . 
Clark  

11 
10.2 
5.2 
5 
4.4 

+  1.4 
0 
+  0.5 
+  0.5 
+  2.8 

Cornell  .... 
Chicago  
Iowa  

Wellesley  .  .  . 
Wisconsin  .  . 
Stanford  .  .  . 
Indiana  .... 

in  scientific  work,  ability  in  teaching  and  ad- 
ministration being  given  a  subordinate  place. 
A  university  may  conceivably  have  a  depart- 
ment consisting  of  men  of  moderate  scientific 
standing,  but  of  personal  distinction  and  su- 
perior teaching  ability.  Some  universities 
even  have  collegiate  professors  who  are  not 
supposed  to  permit  research  work  to  distract 
them  from  teaching  and  the  personal  oversight 
of  students.  The  writer  believes  that  such 
men  belong  to  the  past  rather  than  to  the 
present  generation.  Under  existing  condi- 
tions scientific  men  of  ability  and  character 
will  be  investigators,  and  there  is  a  high  cor- 
relation between  these  traits  and  teaching 
skill.  However,  this  is  one  of  the  numerous 
questions  awaiting  scientific  solution. 

Another  factor  not  taken  into  account  by 
39 


the  figures  is  the  age  of  the  men.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  this  should  not  be  considered  in  the 
present  strength  of  an  institution  or  depart- 
ment, for  if  a  man  of  forty  and  a  man  of  sixty 
have  about  the  same  position,  they  may  be 
regarded  as  of  about  equal  value  for  the  pres- 
ent. There  are  drawbacks  and  advantages  of 
both  youth  and  age  which  nearly  balance  each 
other  or  regarding  which  we  have  at  present 
no  exact  information.  The  writer  would  pre- 
fer the  merits  and  faults  of  the  younger  men. 
However  this  may  be,  the  departments  or  in- 
stitutions having  the  younger  men  are  in  a 
better  position  as  to  the  future. 

In  some  cases  the  strength  of  the  depart- 
ments should  be  considered  in  relation  to 
other  factors.  Thus,  to  take  an  example,  the 
Bussey  Institution,  the  Arnold  Arboretum  and 


594 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIEMCE 


the  Museum  of  Comparative  Zoology  are  parts 
of  Harvard,  whereas  the  New  York  Botanical 
Garden  and  the  American  Museum  of  Natural 
History  are  not  parts  of  Columbia,  though 
their  heads  and  other  officers  may  be  professors 
at  Columbia,  and  their  facilities  may  be  used 
for  graduate  study  to  the  same  extent  as  the 
Harvard  institutes  and  museums.  Or  to  take 
another  example  from  the  institution  with 
which  the  writer  is  connected,  the  School  of 
Pharmacy  has  but  small  educational  connec- 
tion with  Columbia,  but  its  professors  would 
be  added  to  the  strength  of  its  departments, 
whereas  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  now 
adjacent  to  Columbia,  is  closely  affiliated  with 
it  educationally,  but  the  professors  would  not 
be  counted  in  its  strength. 

The  geologists  of  the  TJ.  S.  Geological  Sur- 
vey form  the  strongest  group  of  men  in  the 
same  science  and  under  the  same  institution. 
The  zoologists  of  Harvard  stand  next  with 
about  half  the  strength.  There  then  follow  in 
order  the  physicists  of  Harvard,  the  chemists 
of  the  Massachusetts  Institute,  the  botanists 
of  Harvard,  the  zoologists  of  Columbia,  the 
mathematicians  of  Chicago,  the  pathologists 
of  Harvard  and  the  physicists  of  the  Bureau 
of  Standards.  These  are  the  departments 
which  have  a  strength  equivalent  to  fifteen  or 
more  men  of  standing. 

Reviewing  the  sciences  in  order,  it  appears 
that  in  mathematics  Chicago  and  Harvard  are 
far  in  the  lead,  followed  by  Columbia,  Yale 
and  Illinois,  the  advance  of  the  last  institu- 
tion being  noteworthy  here  and  in  chemistry. 
In  physics  Harvard  has  double  the  strength 
of  any  other  university  and  has  gained  largely. 
Columbia,  which  four  years  ago  stood  first, 
has  lost  more  than  any  university  in  any 
department.  In  chemistry,  the  Massachusetts 
Institute  of  Technology  stands  clearly  first, 
followed  by  Yale,  Harvard  and  the  Johns 
Hopkins.  In  astronomy,  the  great  observa- 
tories— Yerkes,  Lick  and  Harvard — give  their 
universities  precedence.  The  Mt.  Wilson 
Observatory  of  the  Carnegie  Institution  has 
entered  this  group,  while  the  U.  S.  Naval 
Observatory  has  dropped  from  it.  In  geology 


the  U.  S.  Survey  overshadows  the  universities, 
among  which  Yale,  Harvard,  Chicago  and 
Wisconsin  are  in  the  lead.  In  botany  Har- 
vard is  far  in  advance,  followed  among  uni- 
versities by  Chicago  and  Cornell.  The  New 
York  Botanical  Garden  and  the  Department 
of  Agriculture  stand  next  to  Harvard.  The 
Department  of  Agriculture  has,  however,  suf- 
fered severe  losses  within  four  years  and  is 
now  as  strong  in  chemistry  as  in  botany.  In 
zoology  Harvard,  Columbia  and  Chicago  have 
by  far  the  strongest  departments.  The  Amer- 
ican Museum  of  Natural  History  is  twice  as 
strong  as  the  U.  S.  National  Museum.  In 
physiology,  under  which  physiological  chem- 
istry and  pharmacology  are  included,  Harvard 
is  followed  by  Yale  and  the  Johns  Hopkins. 
In  anatomy  the  Johns  Hopkins  is  followed  by 
Harvard  and  Michigan.  In  pathology  Har- 
vard is  followed  by  the  Johns  Hopkins,  which 
precedes  Chicago,  Columbia  and  Michigan. 
The  dependencies  of  the  Smithsonian  Institu- 
tion employ  nearly  half  the  anthropologists  of 
the  country,  but  they  have  lost  ground  in 
recent  years.  Columbia,  Harvard,  California 
and  Clark  are  the  only  universities  with  ade- 
quate departments.  In  psychology  Columbia 
and  Harvard  have  about  double  the  strength 
of  Clark,  Cornell  and  Chicago. 

Reviewing  the  same  figures  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  institutions,  the  primacy  of 
Harvard  among  our  universities  is  unchal- 
lenged. It  stands  first  in  physics,  botany, 
zoology,  physiology  and  pathology;  second  in 
mathematics,  geology,  anatomy,  anthropology 
and  psychology,  and  third  in  chemistry  and 
astronomy.  In  every  science  of  the  twelve,  it 
is  so  nearly  first  that  a  small  change  would 
place  it  there.  This  is  a  remarkable  record, 
and  all  honor  should  be  given  to  the  men 
responsible  for  it.  The  departments  of  Chi- 
cago and  Columbia  stand  next  to  Harvard 
with  about  half  its  strength.  Chicago  stands 
first  in  mathematics  and  astronomy;  second 
in  botany  and  third  in  geology,  zoology  and 
pathology.  Columbia  stands  first  in  anthro- 
pology and  psychology,  second  in  zoology  and 
third  in  mathematics.  The  departments  at 


AMERICAN   MEN   OF    SCIENCE 


595 


Chicago  and  Columbia  are  much  more  un- 
equally developed  than  at  Harvard.  This, 
however,  is  not  a  disadvantage,  as  with  limited 
resources  it  is  probably  desirable  for  a  univer- 
sity to  have  certain  strong  departments  rather 
than  to  have  all  of  equal  mediocrity.  The 
departments  of  mathematics,  geology,  botany 
and  zoology  at  Chicago,  and  of  zoology,  an- 
thropology and  psychology  at  Columbia  are 
well  developed,  while  in  certain  other  sciences 
these  universities  stand  at  the  bottom  of  the 
list  or  even  fail  to  be  included  among  the  ten 
strongest  departments.  The  Johns  Hopkins 
stands  first  in  anatomy,  second  in  pathology 
and  third  in  physics  and  in  physiology.  Yale 
stands  first  in  geology  (which  includes  min- 
eralogy) and  second  in  chemistry  and  physi- 
ology. The  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Tech- 
nology stands  first  in  chemistry. 

The  most  important  recent  development  of 
science  has  been  the  establishment  of  endowed 
institutions  for  research.  The  astronomical 
observatories,  often  officially  but  loosely  con- 
nected with  universities,  are  of  earlier  origin. 
Botanical  gardens  as  centers  of  research  also 
have  a  long  history.  There  is  every  argument 
for  similar  institutions  in  each  science,  either 
as  integral  parts  of  universities,  in  affiliation 
with  them  or  as  independent  institutions;  and 
they  are  probably  being  established  as  rapidly 
as  men  can  be  found  to  do  the  work.  In  all 
our  leading  universities  there  are  professors 
whose  attention  is  devoted  to  advanced  stu- 
dents and  investigation,  and  their  laboratories 
may  be  regarded  as  research  institutions. 
Then  there  are  specially  endowed  foundations, 
such  as  the  Bussey  Institution  of  Harvard 
or  the  new  Crocker  Cancer  Research  Fund 
of  Columbia.  The  Wistar  Institute  of  Biol- 
ogy, affiliated  with  Pennsylvania,  is  perhaps  the 
most  important  institution  of  its  class.  Then 
We  have  independent  institutions  endowed  for 
research,  of  which  the  most  noteworthy  are 
the  Smithsonian  Institution,  the  Carnegie 
Institution  of  Washington  and  the  Rockefeller 
Institute  for  Medical  Research.  The  Smith- 
sonian is  of  special  interest,  owing  to  its  early 
and  peculiar  foundation,  but  its  endowment 


is  not  large  according  to  modern  standards, 
and  its  energies  are  mainly  taken  up  in  di- 
recting government  bureaus.  It  does  some 
publication,  but  very  little  research  work.  The 
Carnegie  Institution  with  its  endowment  of 
$12,000,000  has  been  a  disappointment  to  those 
who  hoped  that  it  would  act  the  part  of  a 
special  providence  for  science  and  scientific 
men.  It  is  at  present  conducting  research 
institutions  in  various  places  and  publishing 
the  work  accomplished.  It  holds  a  good  posi- 
tion in  physics;  astronomy,  botany  and  zool- 
ogy, having  in  all  its  departments  a  total 
strength  of  30.9  men.  It  has  an  endowment 
about  equal  to  the  part  of  the  Harvard  endow- 
ment which  may  be  allotted  to  the  natural  and 
exact  sciences,  which  supports  the  equivalent 
of  146  men,  who  teach  as  well  as  carry  for- 
ward research,  so  its  money,  though  well  spent, 
does  not  seem  to  go  so  far.  A  considerable 
part  of  the  income  has,  however,  been  used  for 
construction,  equipment  and  publication.  The 
Rockefeller  Institute  stands  high  in  pathology 
and  physiology  and  is  continually  improving 
its  position.  It  has  been  placed  under  the 
direct  control  of  scientific  men  and  appears  to 
justify  this  procedure.  The  Marine  Biolog- 
ical Laboratory  at  Woods  Hole  is  also  con- 
ducted by  scientific  men  and  although  without 
endowment  is  an  important  center  for  re- 
search. The  zoologists  working  there  in  sum- 
mer would  have  a  strength  greater  than  any 
department  in  any  science,  including  the  geol- 
ogists of  the  national  survey. 

Bureaus  under  the  national  government 
stand  first  in  geology  and  anthropology,  second 
in  physics  and  third  in  chemistry  and  botany. 
Excellent  work  is  accomplished  by  these  and 
other  bureaus,  but  it  is  probable  that  foreign 
governments  which  spend  far  less  on  science 
have  in  their  service  men  of  greater  distinc- 
tion. There  is  a  wide-spread  belief  that  the 
government  should  only  cultivate  utilitarian 
science.  In  the  opinion  of  the  writer  this  is 
a  mistaken  point  of  view.  Applied  science 
can  be  left  to  commercial  enterprise  more 
safely  than  research  in  pure  science.  The 
work  which  is  of  value  to  the  whole  nation 


596 


AMERICAN   MEN    OF    SCIENCE 


and  to  the  whole  world,  but  has  not  immediate 
commercial  value  to  any  individual  or  group, 
is  the  kind  of  work  which'  requires  public 
support.  If  the  man  of  genius  exists  he 
should  be  given  opportunity  to  use  his  genius 
to  the  best  advantage  of  all.  It  is  extremely 
difficult  to  find  the  men  most  competent  to  do 
research  work  and  to  plade  them  under  the 
most  favorable  conditions,  but  if  the  immeas- 
urable importance  to  society  were  realized,  the 
difficulties  would  be  solved.  It  is  possible  to 
imagine  a  national  research  university  to 
which  the  ablest  men  should  be  drawn,  some 
permanently  and  some  temporarily,  there  to 
be  given  all  possible  facilities  for  their  work, 
together  with  such  honorable  consideration 
and  such  salaries  that  science  and  scholarship 
would  attain  their  due  place  and  be  made  at- 
tractive to  the  fittest.  One  can  even  dream  of 
an  international  research  university  to  the 
support  of  which  each  nation  would  contribute 
a  part  of  the  cost  of  the  armaments  which  it 
would  tend  to  make  useless. 

The  figures  here  given  show  the  advantage 
of  statistics  over  general  impressions.  The 
writer  is  perhaps  as  well  informed  as  any  one 
in  regard  to  the  distribution  of  scientific  men, 
but  some  of  the  figures  came  as  a  surprise  to 
him.  He  knew,  or  thought  he  knew,  that 
Harvard  had  gained  and  Columbia  had  lost, 
but  he  had  no  idea  of  the  extent  of  the  change. 
He  supposed  that  Chicago  had  lost  and  that 
Yale  had  stood  about  stationary,  whereas  both 
institutions  show  decided  gains.  He  had  no 
idea  that  Princeton  had  among  its  instructors 
a  larger  proportion  of  scientific  men  of  stand- 
ing than  Columbia,  or  that  the  proportion  in 
different  universities  varied  from  one  half  to 
one  sixtieth.  And  so  in  many  other  cases  he 
had  wrong  impressions,  and  others  probably 
had  wrong  impressions  of  the  same  or  other 
kinds.  We  are  apt  to  form  general  conclu- 
sions from  striking  individual  cases  without 
regarding  all  the  conditions.  Prominent  men 
lost  by  or  called  to  an  institution  attract  at- 
tention rather  than  the  gradual  improvement 
in  the  performances  of  a  considerable  body  of 


men.  The  eminent  man  that  an  institution 
loses  is  not  as  a  rule  supplied  by  a  new  man, 
but  a  large  loss  in  one  case  is  made  up  by 
small  advances  in  many  cases. 

It  may  be  hoped  that  an  exposition  of  the 
true  conditions  will  be  of  service  to  science. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  abstract  philosophy 
it  may  not  matter  whether  a  scientific  advance 
is  made  in  Russia  or  America,  at  one  univer- 
sity qr  another.  But  abstract  philosophy  in- 
fluences conduct  less  than  concrete  loyalties. 
A  man  who  cares  as  much  for  other  people's 
children  as  for  his  own  is  not  likely  to  care 
greatly  for  any  of  them.  The  president  of  a 
leading  university  has  recently  urged  the  im- 
portance of  increasing  salaries,  not  in  order  to 
attract  better  men  to  the  academic  career  or 
to  enable  them  to  do  better  work,  but  in  order 
that  his  professors  may  not  be  paid  less  than 
those  of  a  sister  institution.  Such  a  point  of 
view  may  seem  rather  nai've,  but  it  is  sound 
human  nature  and  should  be  appealed  to  for 
the  improvement  of  the  conditions  under 
which  scientific  work  is  done.  If  the  loyalty 
of  alumni  could  be  transferred  from  football 
to  scholarship,  there  would  result  a  decided 
gain  to  scholarship.  The  fact  that  each  state 
wants  its  university  to  be  as  strong  as  its 
neighbor's  is  one  of  the  most  potent  factors  in 
the  advance  of  the  state  universities. 

Individual  conduct  is  in  the  main  automatic 
response  to  chance  circumstance.  But  the 
organism  and  the  circumstances  and  especially 
their  interrelations  may  be  altered.  Organic 
life  consists  of  adjustments  brought  about  by 
the  slow  processes  of  nature.  We  have  now 
reached  the  extraordinary  position  from  which 
it  is  possible  to  make  such  adjustments  for  our 
own  welfare  by  foresight  and  scientific  method. 
The  individual  can  prescribe  a  life  of  reason 
more  readily  than  he  can  follow  it.  But  r.u 
environment  can  be  formed  in  which  desirable 
conduct  becomes  a  reflex  response.  Reason 
can  have  no  better  use  than  to  select  indi- 
viduals and  to  arrange  circumstances  so  that 
science  may  be  advanced  and  applied  for  the 
good  of  all. 


.«n«w*d  b 


